User login
Moderna COVID-19 vaccine wins decisive recommendation from FDA panel
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.
The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.
Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.
FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.
“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”
In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.
Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.
The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.
Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.
In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.
“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”
mRNA vaccines in the lead
An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.
In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”
“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.
The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.
The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.
Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.
FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.
“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”
In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.
Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.
The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.
Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.
In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.
“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”
mRNA vaccines in the lead
An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.
In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”
“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.
The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.
The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.
Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.
FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.
“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”
In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.
Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.
The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.
Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.
In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.
“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”
mRNA vaccines in the lead
An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.
In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”
“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.
The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA clears first OTC rapid at-home COVID diagnostic test
The Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization (EUA) for the first COVID-19 diagnostic test that can be completed at home without a prescription.
Authorization of the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is “a major milestone in diagnostic testing for COVID-19,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a news release.
“By authorizing a test for over-the-counter use, the FDA allows it to be sold in places like drug stores, where a patient can buy it, swab their nose, run the test, and find out their results in as little as 20 minutes,” said Dr. Hahn.
The Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is a rapid antigen test that detects fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from a nasal swab sample taken from anyone aged 2 years and older, including those not showing any symptoms.
In testing, the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test correctly identified 96% of positive samples and 100% of negative samples in individuals with symptoms.
In people without symptoms, the test correctly identified 91% of positive samples and 96% of negative samples, the FDA said.
The test includes a sterile nasal swab, a dropper, processing fluid, and a Bluetooth-connected analyzer for use with an app on the user’s smartphone. The sample is analyzed and results are automatically transmitted to the user’s smartphone.
“The Ellume COVID-19 home test’s core technology combines ultra-sensitive optics, electronics, and proprietary software to leverage best-in-class digital immunoassay technology with next-generation multi-quantum dot fluorescence technology,” the company said in a news release.
The mobile app requires individuals to input their ZIP code and date of birth, with optional fields including name and email address. The app automatically reports the results as appropriate to public health authorities to monitor disease prevalence.
Ellume expects to produce more than 3 million tests in January 2021. The company said the test will cost around $30.
FDA authorization of this first fully at-home nonprescription COVID-19 diagnostic test follows last month’s EUA for the first prescription COVID-19 test for home use, as reported this news organization.
Since the start of the pandemic, the FDA has authorized more than 225 diagnostic tests for COVID-19, including more than 25 tests that allow for home collection of samples, which are then sent to a lab for testing.
“As we continue to authorize additional tests for home use, we are helping expand Americans’ access to testing, reducing the burden on laboratories and test supplies, and giving Americans more testing options from the comfort and safety of their own homes,” Dr. Hahn said.
“This test, like other antigen tests, is less sensitive and less specific than typical molecular tests run in a lab,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the release. “However, the fact that it can be used completely at home and return results quickly means that it can play an important role in response to the pandemic.”
As with other antigen tests, a small percentage of positive and negative results from the Ellume test may be false. In patients without symptoms, positive results should be treated as presumptively positive until confirmed by another test as soon as possible, the FDA advised.
This is especially true if there are fewer infections in a particular community, as false-positive results can be more common when antigen tests are used in populations where there is a low prevalence of COVID-19, the agency said.
Because all tests can give false-negative and false-positive results, individuals with positive results should self-isolate and seek additional care from their health care provider.
Individuals who test negative and have symptoms of COVID-19 should follow up with their health care provider, as negative results don’t preclude an individual from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization (EUA) for the first COVID-19 diagnostic test that can be completed at home without a prescription.
Authorization of the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is “a major milestone in diagnostic testing for COVID-19,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a news release.
“By authorizing a test for over-the-counter use, the FDA allows it to be sold in places like drug stores, where a patient can buy it, swab their nose, run the test, and find out their results in as little as 20 minutes,” said Dr. Hahn.
The Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is a rapid antigen test that detects fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from a nasal swab sample taken from anyone aged 2 years and older, including those not showing any symptoms.
In testing, the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test correctly identified 96% of positive samples and 100% of negative samples in individuals with symptoms.
In people without symptoms, the test correctly identified 91% of positive samples and 96% of negative samples, the FDA said.
The test includes a sterile nasal swab, a dropper, processing fluid, and a Bluetooth-connected analyzer for use with an app on the user’s smartphone. The sample is analyzed and results are automatically transmitted to the user’s smartphone.
“The Ellume COVID-19 home test’s core technology combines ultra-sensitive optics, electronics, and proprietary software to leverage best-in-class digital immunoassay technology with next-generation multi-quantum dot fluorescence technology,” the company said in a news release.
The mobile app requires individuals to input their ZIP code and date of birth, with optional fields including name and email address. The app automatically reports the results as appropriate to public health authorities to monitor disease prevalence.
Ellume expects to produce more than 3 million tests in January 2021. The company said the test will cost around $30.
FDA authorization of this first fully at-home nonprescription COVID-19 diagnostic test follows last month’s EUA for the first prescription COVID-19 test for home use, as reported this news organization.
Since the start of the pandemic, the FDA has authorized more than 225 diagnostic tests for COVID-19, including more than 25 tests that allow for home collection of samples, which are then sent to a lab for testing.
“As we continue to authorize additional tests for home use, we are helping expand Americans’ access to testing, reducing the burden on laboratories and test supplies, and giving Americans more testing options from the comfort and safety of their own homes,” Dr. Hahn said.
“This test, like other antigen tests, is less sensitive and less specific than typical molecular tests run in a lab,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the release. “However, the fact that it can be used completely at home and return results quickly means that it can play an important role in response to the pandemic.”
As with other antigen tests, a small percentage of positive and negative results from the Ellume test may be false. In patients without symptoms, positive results should be treated as presumptively positive until confirmed by another test as soon as possible, the FDA advised.
This is especially true if there are fewer infections in a particular community, as false-positive results can be more common when antigen tests are used in populations where there is a low prevalence of COVID-19, the agency said.
Because all tests can give false-negative and false-positive results, individuals with positive results should self-isolate and seek additional care from their health care provider.
Individuals who test negative and have symptoms of COVID-19 should follow up with their health care provider, as negative results don’t preclude an individual from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization (EUA) for the first COVID-19 diagnostic test that can be completed at home without a prescription.
Authorization of the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is “a major milestone in diagnostic testing for COVID-19,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a news release.
“By authorizing a test for over-the-counter use, the FDA allows it to be sold in places like drug stores, where a patient can buy it, swab their nose, run the test, and find out their results in as little as 20 minutes,” said Dr. Hahn.
The Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is a rapid antigen test that detects fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from a nasal swab sample taken from anyone aged 2 years and older, including those not showing any symptoms.
In testing, the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test correctly identified 96% of positive samples and 100% of negative samples in individuals with symptoms.
In people without symptoms, the test correctly identified 91% of positive samples and 96% of negative samples, the FDA said.
The test includes a sterile nasal swab, a dropper, processing fluid, and a Bluetooth-connected analyzer for use with an app on the user’s smartphone. The sample is analyzed and results are automatically transmitted to the user’s smartphone.
“The Ellume COVID-19 home test’s core technology combines ultra-sensitive optics, electronics, and proprietary software to leverage best-in-class digital immunoassay technology with next-generation multi-quantum dot fluorescence technology,” the company said in a news release.
The mobile app requires individuals to input their ZIP code and date of birth, with optional fields including name and email address. The app automatically reports the results as appropriate to public health authorities to monitor disease prevalence.
Ellume expects to produce more than 3 million tests in January 2021. The company said the test will cost around $30.
FDA authorization of this first fully at-home nonprescription COVID-19 diagnostic test follows last month’s EUA for the first prescription COVID-19 test for home use, as reported this news organization.
Since the start of the pandemic, the FDA has authorized more than 225 diagnostic tests for COVID-19, including more than 25 tests that allow for home collection of samples, which are then sent to a lab for testing.
“As we continue to authorize additional tests for home use, we are helping expand Americans’ access to testing, reducing the burden on laboratories and test supplies, and giving Americans more testing options from the comfort and safety of their own homes,” Dr. Hahn said.
“This test, like other antigen tests, is less sensitive and less specific than typical molecular tests run in a lab,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the release. “However, the fact that it can be used completely at home and return results quickly means that it can play an important role in response to the pandemic.”
As with other antigen tests, a small percentage of positive and negative results from the Ellume test may be false. In patients without symptoms, positive results should be treated as presumptively positive until confirmed by another test as soon as possible, the FDA advised.
This is especially true if there are fewer infections in a particular community, as false-positive results can be more common when antigen tests are used in populations where there is a low prevalence of COVID-19, the agency said.
Because all tests can give false-negative and false-positive results, individuals with positive results should self-isolate and seek additional care from their health care provider.
Individuals who test negative and have symptoms of COVID-19 should follow up with their health care provider, as negative results don’t preclude an individual from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA panel supports expanded HF role for sacubitril/valsartan
UPDATED DECEMBER 17
A panel of federal advisers on Tuesday effectively backed a bid to expand approval of sacubitril/valsartan for use in a form of heart failure for which there is not yet an approved medication.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee to broadly consider whether new analyses of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, combined with other information, could support use of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The advisory committee voted 12-1 on this question, which can be seen as a marker for an expanded approval: “Does PARAGON-HF, perhaps supported by previous studies, provide sufficient evidence to support any indication?”
The dissenting vote was cast by the panel’s chairperson, Julia B. Lewis, MD, a professor of medicine from Vanderbilt University. In explaining her vote, Dr. Lewis cited concerns about expanding use of the drug, which has a potential for hypotension. But she noted that the rest of the panelists were “impressed by the totality of the evidence” presented, including a willingness to take a new look at the PARAGON-HF trial. This study was perceived at first pass as having failed to prove a benefit for people with HFpEF.
The 2019 initial unveiling of the PARAGON-HF results had dampened hopes for an evidence-based drug therapy for HFpEF. Patients treated with the first-of-its-kind renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor, compared with those who received standard valsartan, had 13% fewer heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular (CV) deaths over an average of about 3 years, but the difference missed significance at a P value of .059.
“Everybody agreed that the P value of .05 was not written in stone,” Dr. Lewis said in summarizing the panelists’ views on the voting question.
At the FDA’s request, the panel also addressed several other questions without voting on them. The agency asked the panel to describe the patient population for whom an expanded approval would be appropriate. The FDA initially approved sacubitril/valsartan in 2015 to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with chronic heart failure (NYHA Class II-IV) and reduced ejection fraction.
Novartis in April submitted an application to the FDA, seeking to expand the use of sacubitril/valsartan from the currently approved indication for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to include what the company terms “the adjacent population of patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal.” The American Society of Echocardiography and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging define normal LVEF and normal range (±2 standard deviations) as 62% (range, 52%-72%) in men and 64% (range, 54%-74%) in women, Novartis said in its briefing materials for the meeting.
FDA panelist Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, for example, suggested that an expanded approval could allow for use of sacubitril/valsartan for the reduction of heart failure or hospitalization in patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction as defined by greater than 45% through 55%. FDA panelist C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, director of the Barbra Streisand Women’s Heart Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, suggested extending this to 57% to acknowledge the higher threshold for women.
Another FDA panelist, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, argued against use of imprecise terms in defining an expanded patient population for sacubitril/valsartan. If used in the right patient population, the drug could provide a benefit for people who have active heart failure with symptoms, including preventing hospitalizations and renal disease, he said.
“If you are symptomatic with a syndrome that’s consistent with heart failure and you have an ejection fraction below the lower limits of normal, I believe it’s in the public interest for you to get sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Nissen said.
The FDA usually follows the advice of its panels, but is not obligated to. But in this case, the agency staff were clearly seeking a path for an expanded approval of sacubitril/valsartan.
Challenging a standard
The FDA had encouraged Novartis to submit the supplementary application for the HFpEF indication and even suggested some of the post-hoc analyses, the agency staff said in a briefing document for the meeting.
PARAGON-HF illustrated some of the agency’s concerns about missed opportunities in general in large research trials. Some events of interest in studies may be miscounted due to a lack of information such as a requirement for the presence of physical examination findings that are not documented in the patient’s dossier, the FDA staff said.
“We would like to consider giving ‘partial credit’ to events based on the level of evidence provided, e.g., use of an ordinal variable rather than a dichotomous ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ ” the staff said in the briefing document.
At the panel meeting, Norman Stockbridge, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Cardiology and Nephrology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told the panelists there is no basis in law for setting a P value of .05 as the benchmark on whether to declare a trial a success or failure.
“I wanted to take a few minutes and make sure that you on the committee understands what flexibility you have in addressing the case study in question,” Dr. Stockbridge said at the start of the meeting.
He then reviewed cases where the FDA had approved claims for cardiac medicines that had not shown desired results in key tests. These include approval of enalapril for use in asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction on the basis of the SOLVD-Prevention trial, approval of digoxin for heart failure on the basis of the DIG study, and approval of carvedilol for reduced ejection fraction following myocardial infarction on
the basis of the CAPRICORN study, Dr. Stockbridge said.
In reviewing the data for sacubitril/valsartan, FDA staff noted a similarity between investigator-reported and adjudicated results, Stockbridge said.
“This suggested that there were events that did not need all evidentiary criteria as qualified events, but likely were nonetheless,” he said. “This is an example of dichotomization of events being wasteful of information.”
Post-hoc exploratory analyses in PARAGON-HF were able to meet the commonly used standard, according to the FDA briefing document. Among the key findings of these analyses were:
- An analysis of investigator-reported events for the primary composite endpoint of total hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF) and cardiovascular (CV) death demonstrated a rate ratio (RR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.74- 0.97; P = .01).
- Investigator-reported events added 226 and 290 HHF events but decreased CV death by 56 and 58 events in the sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan arms, respectively. Hence, a net 170 and 232 events were added to the clinical endpoint committee–reported primary composite endpoint leading to a P value of .01, without a significant change in RR.
- Analysis of investigator-reported expanded primary composite endpoint events including total HHF, urgent HF visits, and CV death demonstrated a RR of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73-0.95; P = .006. There were 136 and 173 investigator-reported urgent HF events in sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan arms, respectively.
Opening a floodgate?
Cynthia L. Chauhan, MSW, of Wichita, Kansas, who served as the consumer representative on the panel, questioned whether a decision to revisit the data on PARAGON-HF might lead drugmakers to seek to repurpose other failed trials.
“Are we opening any kind of floodgate for other researchers to go back and see this is an invitation to try to, for want of a better term, back-door their way into some approvals?” Ms. Chauhan asked.
Dr. Nissen assured her that this concern was valid and would be considered. The goal would be to allow some flexibility in cases that merit further consideration, while preventing companies from data mining until they find some evidence to support an FDA application, he said.
Re-analyzing trials “should be done carefully, conservatively, and only when it really is compelling that the public interest supports it,” Dr. Nissen stressed.
Panelists reported no conflicts of interest related to the topic of the meeting.
UPDATED DECEMBER 17
A panel of federal advisers on Tuesday effectively backed a bid to expand approval of sacubitril/valsartan for use in a form of heart failure for which there is not yet an approved medication.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee to broadly consider whether new analyses of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, combined with other information, could support use of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The advisory committee voted 12-1 on this question, which can be seen as a marker for an expanded approval: “Does PARAGON-HF, perhaps supported by previous studies, provide sufficient evidence to support any indication?”
The dissenting vote was cast by the panel’s chairperson, Julia B. Lewis, MD, a professor of medicine from Vanderbilt University. In explaining her vote, Dr. Lewis cited concerns about expanding use of the drug, which has a potential for hypotension. But she noted that the rest of the panelists were “impressed by the totality of the evidence” presented, including a willingness to take a new look at the PARAGON-HF trial. This study was perceived at first pass as having failed to prove a benefit for people with HFpEF.
The 2019 initial unveiling of the PARAGON-HF results had dampened hopes for an evidence-based drug therapy for HFpEF. Patients treated with the first-of-its-kind renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor, compared with those who received standard valsartan, had 13% fewer heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular (CV) deaths over an average of about 3 years, but the difference missed significance at a P value of .059.
“Everybody agreed that the P value of .05 was not written in stone,” Dr. Lewis said in summarizing the panelists’ views on the voting question.
At the FDA’s request, the panel also addressed several other questions without voting on them. The agency asked the panel to describe the patient population for whom an expanded approval would be appropriate. The FDA initially approved sacubitril/valsartan in 2015 to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with chronic heart failure (NYHA Class II-IV) and reduced ejection fraction.
Novartis in April submitted an application to the FDA, seeking to expand the use of sacubitril/valsartan from the currently approved indication for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to include what the company terms “the adjacent population of patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal.” The American Society of Echocardiography and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging define normal LVEF and normal range (±2 standard deviations) as 62% (range, 52%-72%) in men and 64% (range, 54%-74%) in women, Novartis said in its briefing materials for the meeting.
FDA panelist Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, for example, suggested that an expanded approval could allow for use of sacubitril/valsartan for the reduction of heart failure or hospitalization in patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction as defined by greater than 45% through 55%. FDA panelist C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, director of the Barbra Streisand Women’s Heart Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, suggested extending this to 57% to acknowledge the higher threshold for women.
Another FDA panelist, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, argued against use of imprecise terms in defining an expanded patient population for sacubitril/valsartan. If used in the right patient population, the drug could provide a benefit for people who have active heart failure with symptoms, including preventing hospitalizations and renal disease, he said.
“If you are symptomatic with a syndrome that’s consistent with heart failure and you have an ejection fraction below the lower limits of normal, I believe it’s in the public interest for you to get sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Nissen said.
The FDA usually follows the advice of its panels, but is not obligated to. But in this case, the agency staff were clearly seeking a path for an expanded approval of sacubitril/valsartan.
Challenging a standard
The FDA had encouraged Novartis to submit the supplementary application for the HFpEF indication and even suggested some of the post-hoc analyses, the agency staff said in a briefing document for the meeting.
PARAGON-HF illustrated some of the agency’s concerns about missed opportunities in general in large research trials. Some events of interest in studies may be miscounted due to a lack of information such as a requirement for the presence of physical examination findings that are not documented in the patient’s dossier, the FDA staff said.
“We would like to consider giving ‘partial credit’ to events based on the level of evidence provided, e.g., use of an ordinal variable rather than a dichotomous ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ ” the staff said in the briefing document.
At the panel meeting, Norman Stockbridge, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Cardiology and Nephrology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told the panelists there is no basis in law for setting a P value of .05 as the benchmark on whether to declare a trial a success or failure.
“I wanted to take a few minutes and make sure that you on the committee understands what flexibility you have in addressing the case study in question,” Dr. Stockbridge said at the start of the meeting.
He then reviewed cases where the FDA had approved claims for cardiac medicines that had not shown desired results in key tests. These include approval of enalapril for use in asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction on the basis of the SOLVD-Prevention trial, approval of digoxin for heart failure on the basis of the DIG study, and approval of carvedilol for reduced ejection fraction following myocardial infarction on
the basis of the CAPRICORN study, Dr. Stockbridge said.
In reviewing the data for sacubitril/valsartan, FDA staff noted a similarity between investigator-reported and adjudicated results, Stockbridge said.
“This suggested that there were events that did not need all evidentiary criteria as qualified events, but likely were nonetheless,” he said. “This is an example of dichotomization of events being wasteful of information.”
Post-hoc exploratory analyses in PARAGON-HF were able to meet the commonly used standard, according to the FDA briefing document. Among the key findings of these analyses were:
- An analysis of investigator-reported events for the primary composite endpoint of total hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF) and cardiovascular (CV) death demonstrated a rate ratio (RR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.74- 0.97; P = .01).
- Investigator-reported events added 226 and 290 HHF events but decreased CV death by 56 and 58 events in the sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan arms, respectively. Hence, a net 170 and 232 events were added to the clinical endpoint committee–reported primary composite endpoint leading to a P value of .01, without a significant change in RR.
- Analysis of investigator-reported expanded primary composite endpoint events including total HHF, urgent HF visits, and CV death demonstrated a RR of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73-0.95; P = .006. There were 136 and 173 investigator-reported urgent HF events in sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan arms, respectively.
Opening a floodgate?
Cynthia L. Chauhan, MSW, of Wichita, Kansas, who served as the consumer representative on the panel, questioned whether a decision to revisit the data on PARAGON-HF might lead drugmakers to seek to repurpose other failed trials.
“Are we opening any kind of floodgate for other researchers to go back and see this is an invitation to try to, for want of a better term, back-door their way into some approvals?” Ms. Chauhan asked.
Dr. Nissen assured her that this concern was valid and would be considered. The goal would be to allow some flexibility in cases that merit further consideration, while preventing companies from data mining until they find some evidence to support an FDA application, he said.
Re-analyzing trials “should be done carefully, conservatively, and only when it really is compelling that the public interest supports it,” Dr. Nissen stressed.
Panelists reported no conflicts of interest related to the topic of the meeting.
UPDATED DECEMBER 17
A panel of federal advisers on Tuesday effectively backed a bid to expand approval of sacubitril/valsartan for use in a form of heart failure for which there is not yet an approved medication.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee to broadly consider whether new analyses of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, combined with other information, could support use of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The advisory committee voted 12-1 on this question, which can be seen as a marker for an expanded approval: “Does PARAGON-HF, perhaps supported by previous studies, provide sufficient evidence to support any indication?”
The dissenting vote was cast by the panel’s chairperson, Julia B. Lewis, MD, a professor of medicine from Vanderbilt University. In explaining her vote, Dr. Lewis cited concerns about expanding use of the drug, which has a potential for hypotension. But she noted that the rest of the panelists were “impressed by the totality of the evidence” presented, including a willingness to take a new look at the PARAGON-HF trial. This study was perceived at first pass as having failed to prove a benefit for people with HFpEF.
The 2019 initial unveiling of the PARAGON-HF results had dampened hopes for an evidence-based drug therapy for HFpEF. Patients treated with the first-of-its-kind renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor, compared with those who received standard valsartan, had 13% fewer heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular (CV) deaths over an average of about 3 years, but the difference missed significance at a P value of .059.
“Everybody agreed that the P value of .05 was not written in stone,” Dr. Lewis said in summarizing the panelists’ views on the voting question.
At the FDA’s request, the panel also addressed several other questions without voting on them. The agency asked the panel to describe the patient population for whom an expanded approval would be appropriate. The FDA initially approved sacubitril/valsartan in 2015 to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with chronic heart failure (NYHA Class II-IV) and reduced ejection fraction.
Novartis in April submitted an application to the FDA, seeking to expand the use of sacubitril/valsartan from the currently approved indication for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to include what the company terms “the adjacent population of patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal.” The American Society of Echocardiography and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging define normal LVEF and normal range (±2 standard deviations) as 62% (range, 52%-72%) in men and 64% (range, 54%-74%) in women, Novartis said in its briefing materials for the meeting.
FDA panelist Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, for example, suggested that an expanded approval could allow for use of sacubitril/valsartan for the reduction of heart failure or hospitalization in patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction as defined by greater than 45% through 55%. FDA panelist C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, director of the Barbra Streisand Women’s Heart Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, suggested extending this to 57% to acknowledge the higher threshold for women.
Another FDA panelist, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, argued against use of imprecise terms in defining an expanded patient population for sacubitril/valsartan. If used in the right patient population, the drug could provide a benefit for people who have active heart failure with symptoms, including preventing hospitalizations and renal disease, he said.
“If you are symptomatic with a syndrome that’s consistent with heart failure and you have an ejection fraction below the lower limits of normal, I believe it’s in the public interest for you to get sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Nissen said.
The FDA usually follows the advice of its panels, but is not obligated to. But in this case, the agency staff were clearly seeking a path for an expanded approval of sacubitril/valsartan.
Challenging a standard
The FDA had encouraged Novartis to submit the supplementary application for the HFpEF indication and even suggested some of the post-hoc analyses, the agency staff said in a briefing document for the meeting.
PARAGON-HF illustrated some of the agency’s concerns about missed opportunities in general in large research trials. Some events of interest in studies may be miscounted due to a lack of information such as a requirement for the presence of physical examination findings that are not documented in the patient’s dossier, the FDA staff said.
“We would like to consider giving ‘partial credit’ to events based on the level of evidence provided, e.g., use of an ordinal variable rather than a dichotomous ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ ” the staff said in the briefing document.
At the panel meeting, Norman Stockbridge, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Cardiology and Nephrology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told the panelists there is no basis in law for setting a P value of .05 as the benchmark on whether to declare a trial a success or failure.
“I wanted to take a few minutes and make sure that you on the committee understands what flexibility you have in addressing the case study in question,” Dr. Stockbridge said at the start of the meeting.
He then reviewed cases where the FDA had approved claims for cardiac medicines that had not shown desired results in key tests. These include approval of enalapril for use in asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction on the basis of the SOLVD-Prevention trial, approval of digoxin for heart failure on the basis of the DIG study, and approval of carvedilol for reduced ejection fraction following myocardial infarction on
the basis of the CAPRICORN study, Dr. Stockbridge said.
In reviewing the data for sacubitril/valsartan, FDA staff noted a similarity between investigator-reported and adjudicated results, Stockbridge said.
“This suggested that there were events that did not need all evidentiary criteria as qualified events, but likely were nonetheless,” he said. “This is an example of dichotomization of events being wasteful of information.”
Post-hoc exploratory analyses in PARAGON-HF were able to meet the commonly used standard, according to the FDA briefing document. Among the key findings of these analyses were:
- An analysis of investigator-reported events for the primary composite endpoint of total hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF) and cardiovascular (CV) death demonstrated a rate ratio (RR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.74- 0.97; P = .01).
- Investigator-reported events added 226 and 290 HHF events but decreased CV death by 56 and 58 events in the sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan arms, respectively. Hence, a net 170 and 232 events were added to the clinical endpoint committee–reported primary composite endpoint leading to a P value of .01, without a significant change in RR.
- Analysis of investigator-reported expanded primary composite endpoint events including total HHF, urgent HF visits, and CV death demonstrated a RR of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73-0.95; P = .006. There were 136 and 173 investigator-reported urgent HF events in sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan arms, respectively.
Opening a floodgate?
Cynthia L. Chauhan, MSW, of Wichita, Kansas, who served as the consumer representative on the panel, questioned whether a decision to revisit the data on PARAGON-HF might lead drugmakers to seek to repurpose other failed trials.
“Are we opening any kind of floodgate for other researchers to go back and see this is an invitation to try to, for want of a better term, back-door their way into some approvals?” Ms. Chauhan asked.
Dr. Nissen assured her that this concern was valid and would be considered. The goal would be to allow some flexibility in cases that merit further consideration, while preventing companies from data mining until they find some evidence to support an FDA application, he said.
Re-analyzing trials “should be done carefully, conservatively, and only when it really is compelling that the public interest supports it,” Dr. Nissen stressed.
Panelists reported no conflicts of interest related to the topic of the meeting.
FDA gives guidance on allergy, pregnancy concerns for Pfizer COVID vaccine
stating that it is safe for people with any history of allergies, but not for those who might have a known history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.
The warning is included in the FDA’s information sheet for health care providers, but questions are arising as to whether the vaccine – which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA on Friday – should not be given to anyone with a history of allergies.
Sara Oliver, MD, an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at a Dec. 11 meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that two U.K. health care workers with a history of significant allergic reactions had a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. A third health care worker with no history of allergies developed tachycardia, Dr. Oliver said.
“I want to reassure the public that although there were these few reactions in Great Britain, these were not seen in the larger clinical trial datasets,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, during a press briefing on Dec. 12.
The Pfizer vaccine “is one that we’re comfortable giving to patients who have had other allergic reactions besides those other than severe allergic reactions to a vaccine or one of its components,” he said.
Dr. Marks suggested that individuals let their physicians know about any history of allergic reactions. He also noted that the federal government will be supplying vaccine administration sites, at least initially, with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and other medications needed to manage allergic reactions.
The FDA is going to monitor side effects such as allergic reactions very closely, “but I think we still need to learn more and that’s why we’re going to be taking precautions. We may have to modify things as we move forward,” said Dr. Marks.
Dr. Oliver said that on Dec. 12 the CDC convened an external panel with experience in vaccine safety, immunology, and allergies “to collate expert knowledge regarding possible cases,” and that the FDA is getting more data from U.K. regulatory authorities.
Pregnancy concerns
Agency officials had little to say, however, about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women.
The FDA’s information to health care professionals noted that “available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”
Additionally, the agency stated, “data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”
Dr. Marks said that, for pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised, “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis.” He suggested that individuals consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.
“Certainly, COVID-19 in a pregnant woman is not a good thing,” Dr. Marks said.
An individual might decide to go ahead with vaccination. “But that’s not something we’re recommending, that’s something we’re leaving up to the individual,” he said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
stating that it is safe for people with any history of allergies, but not for those who might have a known history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.
The warning is included in the FDA’s information sheet for health care providers, but questions are arising as to whether the vaccine – which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA on Friday – should not be given to anyone with a history of allergies.
Sara Oliver, MD, an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at a Dec. 11 meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that two U.K. health care workers with a history of significant allergic reactions had a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. A third health care worker with no history of allergies developed tachycardia, Dr. Oliver said.
“I want to reassure the public that although there were these few reactions in Great Britain, these were not seen in the larger clinical trial datasets,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, during a press briefing on Dec. 12.
The Pfizer vaccine “is one that we’re comfortable giving to patients who have had other allergic reactions besides those other than severe allergic reactions to a vaccine or one of its components,” he said.
Dr. Marks suggested that individuals let their physicians know about any history of allergic reactions. He also noted that the federal government will be supplying vaccine administration sites, at least initially, with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and other medications needed to manage allergic reactions.
The FDA is going to monitor side effects such as allergic reactions very closely, “but I think we still need to learn more and that’s why we’re going to be taking precautions. We may have to modify things as we move forward,” said Dr. Marks.
Dr. Oliver said that on Dec. 12 the CDC convened an external panel with experience in vaccine safety, immunology, and allergies “to collate expert knowledge regarding possible cases,” and that the FDA is getting more data from U.K. regulatory authorities.
Pregnancy concerns
Agency officials had little to say, however, about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women.
The FDA’s information to health care professionals noted that “available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”
Additionally, the agency stated, “data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”
Dr. Marks said that, for pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised, “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis.” He suggested that individuals consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.
“Certainly, COVID-19 in a pregnant woman is not a good thing,” Dr. Marks said.
An individual might decide to go ahead with vaccination. “But that’s not something we’re recommending, that’s something we’re leaving up to the individual,” he said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
stating that it is safe for people with any history of allergies, but not for those who might have a known history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.
The warning is included in the FDA’s information sheet for health care providers, but questions are arising as to whether the vaccine – which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA on Friday – should not be given to anyone with a history of allergies.
Sara Oliver, MD, an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at a Dec. 11 meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that two U.K. health care workers with a history of significant allergic reactions had a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. A third health care worker with no history of allergies developed tachycardia, Dr. Oliver said.
“I want to reassure the public that although there were these few reactions in Great Britain, these were not seen in the larger clinical trial datasets,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, during a press briefing on Dec. 12.
The Pfizer vaccine “is one that we’re comfortable giving to patients who have had other allergic reactions besides those other than severe allergic reactions to a vaccine or one of its components,” he said.
Dr. Marks suggested that individuals let their physicians know about any history of allergic reactions. He also noted that the federal government will be supplying vaccine administration sites, at least initially, with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and other medications needed to manage allergic reactions.
The FDA is going to monitor side effects such as allergic reactions very closely, “but I think we still need to learn more and that’s why we’re going to be taking precautions. We may have to modify things as we move forward,” said Dr. Marks.
Dr. Oliver said that on Dec. 12 the CDC convened an external panel with experience in vaccine safety, immunology, and allergies “to collate expert knowledge regarding possible cases,” and that the FDA is getting more data from U.K. regulatory authorities.
Pregnancy concerns
Agency officials had little to say, however, about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women.
The FDA’s information to health care professionals noted that “available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”
Additionally, the agency stated, “data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”
Dr. Marks said that, for pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised, “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis.” He suggested that individuals consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.
“Certainly, COVID-19 in a pregnant woman is not a good thing,” Dr. Marks said.
An individual might decide to go ahead with vaccination. “But that’s not something we’re recommending, that’s something we’re leaving up to the individual,” he said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Twincretin ‘impressive’: Topline data from phase 3 trial in diabetes
Tirzepatide, a novel subcutaneously injected drug that acts via two related but separate pathways of glucose control, produced strikingly positive effects in top-line results from the phase 3, placebo-controlled study SURPASS-1 in 478 adults with type 2 diabetes, according to a Dec. 9 press release from the manufacturer, Lilly.
The tirzepatide molecule exerts agonist effects at both the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, and has been called a “twincretin” for its activity encompassing two different incretins. Phase 2 trial results caused excitement, with one physician calling the data “unbelievable” when reported in 2018.
SURPASS-1 enrolled patients who were very early in the course of their disease, had on average relatively mild elevation in glucose levels, and few metabolic comorbidities. They took one of three doses of the agent (5, 10, or 15 mg) as monotherapy or placebo for 40 weeks.
Julio Rosenstock, MD, said in the Lilly statement: “The study took a bold approach in assessing A1c targets. Not only did nearly 90% of all participants taking tirzepatide meet the standard A1c goal of less than 7%, more than half taking the highest dose also achieved an A1c less than 5.7%, the level seen in people without diabetes.”
Dr. Rosenstock is principal investigator of SURPASS-1 and director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center in Texas.
The discontinuation rate in the high-dose group was 21.5% compared with less than 10% in the two lower-dose cohorts. Lilly said most of the dropouts “were due to the pandemic and family or work reasons.” The dropout rate in the placebo group was 14.8%.
These data were not included in the efficacy analysis, however, which “muddied” the analysis somewhat, one pharma analyst told BioPharma Dive.
Commenting on the new trial data, Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said in an interview: “I am very impressed with these results,” which are “unprecedented for any glucose-lowering medication that has ever been tested.”
Dr. Lingvay, of the department of internal medicine/endocrinology, and medical director, office of clinical trials management at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was not involved in the study.
She added that the weight loss seen with tirzepatide “is equally impressive with greater than 10% of body weight loss above placebo achieved within 40 weeks of treatment and without any directed weight loss efforts.”
If the agent is eventually approved, “I am enthusiastic about the prospect of having another very powerful tool to address both diabetes and obesity,” she added.
The full results of SURPASS-1 will be presented at the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions and published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2021.
SURPASS-1 is one of eight phase 3 studies of the drug, including five registration studies and one large 12,500-patient cardiovascular outcomes trial.
Tirzepatide patients lost up to 20 lb, side effect profile ‘reassuring’
In the study, patients had been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (average duration, 4.8 years) and 54% were treatment-naive. Average baseline hemoglobin A1c was 7.9% and mean weight was 85.9 kg (189 pounds).
Patients started on a subcutaneous injectable dose of tirzepatide of 2.5 mg per week, which was titrated up to the final dose – 5, 10, or 15 mg – in 2.5-mg increments given as monotherapy for 40 weeks and compared with placebo.
Treatment with tirzepatide resulted in average reductions in A1c from baseline that ranged from 1.87% to 2.07%, depending on the dose, and were all significant compared with an increase of 0.4% with placebo.
The percentage of patients whose A1c fell to normal levels (less than 5.7%) ranged from 30.5% to 51.7%, compared with 0.9% among controls, and again, was significant for all doses.
Patients treated with tirzepatide also lost weight. Average weight reductions after 40 weeks were significant and ranged from 7.0 to 9.5 kg (15-21 pounds) compared with an average loss of 0.7 kg (1.5 pounds) among patients who received placebo.
The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related and mild to moderate in severity, and usually occurred during dose escalation.
Dr. Lingvay said the safety data reported are “reassuring, with side effects in the anticipated range and comparable with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class.”
And no hypoglycemic (level 2, < 54 mg/dL) events were reported, “which is impressive considering the overall glucose level achieved,” she noted.
“I am eagerly awaiting the results of the other studies within the SURPASS program and hope those will confirm these initial findings and provide additional safety and efficacy information in a wider range of patients with type 2 diabetes,” she concluded.
Dr. Lingvay has reported receiving research funding, advisory/consulting fees, and/or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, MannKind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Tirzepatide, a novel subcutaneously injected drug that acts via two related but separate pathways of glucose control, produced strikingly positive effects in top-line results from the phase 3, placebo-controlled study SURPASS-1 in 478 adults with type 2 diabetes, according to a Dec. 9 press release from the manufacturer, Lilly.
The tirzepatide molecule exerts agonist effects at both the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, and has been called a “twincretin” for its activity encompassing two different incretins. Phase 2 trial results caused excitement, with one physician calling the data “unbelievable” when reported in 2018.
SURPASS-1 enrolled patients who were very early in the course of their disease, had on average relatively mild elevation in glucose levels, and few metabolic comorbidities. They took one of three doses of the agent (5, 10, or 15 mg) as monotherapy or placebo for 40 weeks.
Julio Rosenstock, MD, said in the Lilly statement: “The study took a bold approach in assessing A1c targets. Not only did nearly 90% of all participants taking tirzepatide meet the standard A1c goal of less than 7%, more than half taking the highest dose also achieved an A1c less than 5.7%, the level seen in people without diabetes.”
Dr. Rosenstock is principal investigator of SURPASS-1 and director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center in Texas.
The discontinuation rate in the high-dose group was 21.5% compared with less than 10% in the two lower-dose cohorts. Lilly said most of the dropouts “were due to the pandemic and family or work reasons.” The dropout rate in the placebo group was 14.8%.
These data were not included in the efficacy analysis, however, which “muddied” the analysis somewhat, one pharma analyst told BioPharma Dive.
Commenting on the new trial data, Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said in an interview: “I am very impressed with these results,” which are “unprecedented for any glucose-lowering medication that has ever been tested.”
Dr. Lingvay, of the department of internal medicine/endocrinology, and medical director, office of clinical trials management at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was not involved in the study.
She added that the weight loss seen with tirzepatide “is equally impressive with greater than 10% of body weight loss above placebo achieved within 40 weeks of treatment and without any directed weight loss efforts.”
If the agent is eventually approved, “I am enthusiastic about the prospect of having another very powerful tool to address both diabetes and obesity,” she added.
The full results of SURPASS-1 will be presented at the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions and published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2021.
SURPASS-1 is one of eight phase 3 studies of the drug, including five registration studies and one large 12,500-patient cardiovascular outcomes trial.
Tirzepatide patients lost up to 20 lb, side effect profile ‘reassuring’
In the study, patients had been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (average duration, 4.8 years) and 54% were treatment-naive. Average baseline hemoglobin A1c was 7.9% and mean weight was 85.9 kg (189 pounds).
Patients started on a subcutaneous injectable dose of tirzepatide of 2.5 mg per week, which was titrated up to the final dose – 5, 10, or 15 mg – in 2.5-mg increments given as monotherapy for 40 weeks and compared with placebo.
Treatment with tirzepatide resulted in average reductions in A1c from baseline that ranged from 1.87% to 2.07%, depending on the dose, and were all significant compared with an increase of 0.4% with placebo.
The percentage of patients whose A1c fell to normal levels (less than 5.7%) ranged from 30.5% to 51.7%, compared with 0.9% among controls, and again, was significant for all doses.
Patients treated with tirzepatide also lost weight. Average weight reductions after 40 weeks were significant and ranged from 7.0 to 9.5 kg (15-21 pounds) compared with an average loss of 0.7 kg (1.5 pounds) among patients who received placebo.
The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related and mild to moderate in severity, and usually occurred during dose escalation.
Dr. Lingvay said the safety data reported are “reassuring, with side effects in the anticipated range and comparable with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class.”
And no hypoglycemic (level 2, < 54 mg/dL) events were reported, “which is impressive considering the overall glucose level achieved,” she noted.
“I am eagerly awaiting the results of the other studies within the SURPASS program and hope those will confirm these initial findings and provide additional safety and efficacy information in a wider range of patients with type 2 diabetes,” she concluded.
Dr. Lingvay has reported receiving research funding, advisory/consulting fees, and/or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, MannKind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Tirzepatide, a novel subcutaneously injected drug that acts via two related but separate pathways of glucose control, produced strikingly positive effects in top-line results from the phase 3, placebo-controlled study SURPASS-1 in 478 adults with type 2 diabetes, according to a Dec. 9 press release from the manufacturer, Lilly.
The tirzepatide molecule exerts agonist effects at both the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, and has been called a “twincretin” for its activity encompassing two different incretins. Phase 2 trial results caused excitement, with one physician calling the data “unbelievable” when reported in 2018.
SURPASS-1 enrolled patients who were very early in the course of their disease, had on average relatively mild elevation in glucose levels, and few metabolic comorbidities. They took one of three doses of the agent (5, 10, or 15 mg) as monotherapy or placebo for 40 weeks.
Julio Rosenstock, MD, said in the Lilly statement: “The study took a bold approach in assessing A1c targets. Not only did nearly 90% of all participants taking tirzepatide meet the standard A1c goal of less than 7%, more than half taking the highest dose also achieved an A1c less than 5.7%, the level seen in people without diabetes.”
Dr. Rosenstock is principal investigator of SURPASS-1 and director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center in Texas.
The discontinuation rate in the high-dose group was 21.5% compared with less than 10% in the two lower-dose cohorts. Lilly said most of the dropouts “were due to the pandemic and family or work reasons.” The dropout rate in the placebo group was 14.8%.
These data were not included in the efficacy analysis, however, which “muddied” the analysis somewhat, one pharma analyst told BioPharma Dive.
Commenting on the new trial data, Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said in an interview: “I am very impressed with these results,” which are “unprecedented for any glucose-lowering medication that has ever been tested.”
Dr. Lingvay, of the department of internal medicine/endocrinology, and medical director, office of clinical trials management at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was not involved in the study.
She added that the weight loss seen with tirzepatide “is equally impressive with greater than 10% of body weight loss above placebo achieved within 40 weeks of treatment and without any directed weight loss efforts.”
If the agent is eventually approved, “I am enthusiastic about the prospect of having another very powerful tool to address both diabetes and obesity,” she added.
The full results of SURPASS-1 will be presented at the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions and published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2021.
SURPASS-1 is one of eight phase 3 studies of the drug, including five registration studies and one large 12,500-patient cardiovascular outcomes trial.
Tirzepatide patients lost up to 20 lb, side effect profile ‘reassuring’
In the study, patients had been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (average duration, 4.8 years) and 54% were treatment-naive. Average baseline hemoglobin A1c was 7.9% and mean weight was 85.9 kg (189 pounds).
Patients started on a subcutaneous injectable dose of tirzepatide of 2.5 mg per week, which was titrated up to the final dose – 5, 10, or 15 mg – in 2.5-mg increments given as monotherapy for 40 weeks and compared with placebo.
Treatment with tirzepatide resulted in average reductions in A1c from baseline that ranged from 1.87% to 2.07%, depending on the dose, and were all significant compared with an increase of 0.4% with placebo.
The percentage of patients whose A1c fell to normal levels (less than 5.7%) ranged from 30.5% to 51.7%, compared with 0.9% among controls, and again, was significant for all doses.
Patients treated with tirzepatide also lost weight. Average weight reductions after 40 weeks were significant and ranged from 7.0 to 9.5 kg (15-21 pounds) compared with an average loss of 0.7 kg (1.5 pounds) among patients who received placebo.
The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related and mild to moderate in severity, and usually occurred during dose escalation.
Dr. Lingvay said the safety data reported are “reassuring, with side effects in the anticipated range and comparable with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class.”
And no hypoglycemic (level 2, < 54 mg/dL) events were reported, “which is impressive considering the overall glucose level achieved,” she noted.
“I am eagerly awaiting the results of the other studies within the SURPASS program and hope those will confirm these initial findings and provide additional safety and efficacy information in a wider range of patients with type 2 diabetes,” she concluded.
Dr. Lingvay has reported receiving research funding, advisory/consulting fees, and/or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, MannKind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC panel recommends Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for people 16 and over
stating they found it was safe and effective.
The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.
CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.
The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.
ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.
The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.
Allergies, pregnant women?
ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.
The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.
Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.
The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.
She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.
Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.
“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.
ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.
“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”
A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.
On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.
The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.
Should teens be a special population?
At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.
Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.
He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.
Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.
Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.
Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.
“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.
“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.
Vaccine = hope
Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.
Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”
“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.
The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.
The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
stating they found it was safe and effective.
The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.
CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.
The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.
ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.
The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.
Allergies, pregnant women?
ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.
The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.
Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.
The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.
She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.
Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.
“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.
ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.
“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”
A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.
On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.
The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.
Should teens be a special population?
At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.
Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.
He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.
Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.
Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.
Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.
“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.
“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.
Vaccine = hope
Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.
Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”
“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.
The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.
The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
stating they found it was safe and effective.
The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.
CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.
The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.
ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.
The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.
Allergies, pregnant women?
ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.
The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.
Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.
The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.
She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.
Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.
“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.
ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.
“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”
A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.
On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.
The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.
Should teens be a special population?
At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.
Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.
He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.
Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.
Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.
Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.
“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.
“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.
Vaccine = hope
Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.
Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”
“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.
The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.
The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs emergency use of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine
The much-anticipated emergency use authorization (EUA) of this vaccine — the first such approval in the United States — was greeted with optimism by infectious disease and pulmonary experts, although unanswered questions remain regarding use in people with allergic hypersensitivity, safety in pregnant women, and how smooth distribution will be.
“I am delighted. This is a first, firm step on a long path to getting this COVID pandemic under control,” William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview.
The FDA gave the green light after the December 10 recommendation from the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. The committee voted 17-4 in favor of the emergency authorization.
The COVID-19 vaccine is “going to have a major impact here in the US. I’m very optimistic about it,” Dial Hewlett, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of American (IDSA), told this news organization.
Daniel Culver, DO, chair of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, is likewise hopeful. “My understanding is that supplies of the vaccine are already in place in hubs and will be shipped relatively quickly. The hope would be we can start vaccinating people as early as next week.”
Allergic reactions reported in the UK
After vaccinations with the Pfizer vaccine began in the UK on December 8, reports surfaced of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions. They have since recovered, but officials warned that people with a history of severe allergic reactions should not receive the Pfizer vaccine at this time.
“For the moment, they are asking people who have had notable allergic reactions to step aside while this is investigated. It shows you that the system is working,” Schaffner said.
Both vaccine recipients who experienced anaphylaxis carried EpiPens, as they were at high risk for allergic reactions, Hewlett said. Also, if other COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in the future, people allergic to the Pfizer vaccine might have another option, he added.
Reassuring role models
Schaffner supports the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decision to start vaccinations with healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities.
“Vaccinating healthcare workers, in particular, will be a model for the general public,” said Schaffner, who is also a former member of the IDSA board of directors. “If they see those of us in white coats and blue scrubs lining up for the vaccine, that will provide confidence.”
To further increase acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine, public health officials need to provide information and reassure the general public, Schaffner said.
Hewlett agreed. “I know there are a lot of people in the population who are very hesitant about vaccines. As infection disease specialists and people in public health, we are trying to allay a lot of concerns people have.”
Reassurance will be especially important in minority communities. “They have been disproportionately affected by the virus, and they have a traditional history of not being optimally vaccinated,” Schaffner said. “We need to reach them in particular with good information and reassurance…so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families.”
No vaccine is 100% effective or completely free of side effects. “There is always a chance there can be adverse reactions, but we think for the most part this is going to be a safe and effective vaccine,” said Hewlett, medical director at the Division of Disease Control and deputy to commissioner of health at the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, New York.
Distribution: Smooth or full of strife?
In addition to the concern that some people will not take advantage of vaccination against COVID-19, there could be vaccine supply issues down the road, Schaffner said.
Culver agreed. “In the early phases, I expect that there will be some kinks to work out, but because the numbers are relatively small, this should be okay,” he said.
“I think when we start to get into larger-scale vaccination programs — the supply chain, transport, and storage will be a Herculean undertaking,” Culver added. “It will take careful coordination between healthcare providers, distributors, suppliers, and public health officials to pull this off.”
Planning and distribution also should focus beyond US borders. Any issues in vaccine distribution or administration in the United States “will only be multiplied in several other parts of the world,” Culver said. Because COVID-19 is a pandemic, “we need to think about vaccinating globally.”
Investigating adverse events
Adverse events common to vaccinations in general — injection site pain, headaches, and fever — would not be unexpected with the COVID-19 vaccines. However, experts remain concerned that other, unrelated adverse events might be erroneously attributed to vaccination. For example, if a fall, heart attack, or death occurs within days of immunization, some might immediately blame the vaccine product.
“It’s important to remember that any new, highly touted medical therapy like this will receive a lot of scrutiny, so it would be unusual not to hear about something happening to somebody,” Culver said. Vaccine companies and health agencies will be carefully evaluating any reported adverse events to ensure no safety signal was missed in the trials.
“Fortunately, there are systems in place to investigate these events immediately,” Schaffner said.
Pregnancy recommendations pending
One question still looms: Is the COVID-19 vaccination safe for pregnant women? This isn’t just a question for the general public, either, Schaffner said. He estimated that about 70 percent of healthcare workers are women, and data suggests about 300,000 of these healthcare workers are pregnant.
“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will speak to that just as soon as the EUA is issued,” he added.
Patients are asking Culver about the priority order for vaccination. He said it’s difficult to provide firm guidance at this point.
People also have “lingering skepticism” about whether vaccine development was done in a prudent way, Culver said. Some people question whether the Pfizer vaccine and others were rushed to market. “So we try to spend time with the patients, reassuring them that all the usual safety evaluations were carefully done,” he said.
Another concern is whether mRNA vaccines can interact with human DNA. “The quick, short, and definitive answer is no,” Schaffner said. The m stands for messenger — the vaccines transmit information. "Once it gets into a cell, the mRNA does not go anywhere near the DNA, and once it transmits its information to the cell appropriately, it gets metabolized, and we excrete all the remnants."
Hewlett pointed out that investigations and surveillance will continue. Because this is an EUA and not full approval, “that essentially means they will still be obligated to collect a lot more data than they would ordinarily,” he said.
How long immunoprotection will last also remains an unknown. “The big question left on the table now is the durability,” Culver said. “Of course, we won’t know the answer to that for quite some time.”
Schaffner and Culver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Hewlett was an employee of Pfizer until mid-2019. His previous work as Pfizer’s senior medical director of global medical product evaluation was not associated with development of the COVID-19 vaccine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The much-anticipated emergency use authorization (EUA) of this vaccine — the first such approval in the United States — was greeted with optimism by infectious disease and pulmonary experts, although unanswered questions remain regarding use in people with allergic hypersensitivity, safety in pregnant women, and how smooth distribution will be.
“I am delighted. This is a first, firm step on a long path to getting this COVID pandemic under control,” William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview.
The FDA gave the green light after the December 10 recommendation from the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. The committee voted 17-4 in favor of the emergency authorization.
The COVID-19 vaccine is “going to have a major impact here in the US. I’m very optimistic about it,” Dial Hewlett, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of American (IDSA), told this news organization.
Daniel Culver, DO, chair of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, is likewise hopeful. “My understanding is that supplies of the vaccine are already in place in hubs and will be shipped relatively quickly. The hope would be we can start vaccinating people as early as next week.”
Allergic reactions reported in the UK
After vaccinations with the Pfizer vaccine began in the UK on December 8, reports surfaced of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions. They have since recovered, but officials warned that people with a history of severe allergic reactions should not receive the Pfizer vaccine at this time.
“For the moment, they are asking people who have had notable allergic reactions to step aside while this is investigated. It shows you that the system is working,” Schaffner said.
Both vaccine recipients who experienced anaphylaxis carried EpiPens, as they were at high risk for allergic reactions, Hewlett said. Also, if other COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in the future, people allergic to the Pfizer vaccine might have another option, he added.
Reassuring role models
Schaffner supports the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decision to start vaccinations with healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities.
“Vaccinating healthcare workers, in particular, will be a model for the general public,” said Schaffner, who is also a former member of the IDSA board of directors. “If they see those of us in white coats and blue scrubs lining up for the vaccine, that will provide confidence.”
To further increase acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine, public health officials need to provide information and reassure the general public, Schaffner said.
Hewlett agreed. “I know there are a lot of people in the population who are very hesitant about vaccines. As infection disease specialists and people in public health, we are trying to allay a lot of concerns people have.”
Reassurance will be especially important in minority communities. “They have been disproportionately affected by the virus, and they have a traditional history of not being optimally vaccinated,” Schaffner said. “We need to reach them in particular with good information and reassurance…so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families.”
No vaccine is 100% effective or completely free of side effects. “There is always a chance there can be adverse reactions, but we think for the most part this is going to be a safe and effective vaccine,” said Hewlett, medical director at the Division of Disease Control and deputy to commissioner of health at the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, New York.
Distribution: Smooth or full of strife?
In addition to the concern that some people will not take advantage of vaccination against COVID-19, there could be vaccine supply issues down the road, Schaffner said.
Culver agreed. “In the early phases, I expect that there will be some kinks to work out, but because the numbers are relatively small, this should be okay,” he said.
“I think when we start to get into larger-scale vaccination programs — the supply chain, transport, and storage will be a Herculean undertaking,” Culver added. “It will take careful coordination between healthcare providers, distributors, suppliers, and public health officials to pull this off.”
Planning and distribution also should focus beyond US borders. Any issues in vaccine distribution or administration in the United States “will only be multiplied in several other parts of the world,” Culver said. Because COVID-19 is a pandemic, “we need to think about vaccinating globally.”
Investigating adverse events
Adverse events common to vaccinations in general — injection site pain, headaches, and fever — would not be unexpected with the COVID-19 vaccines. However, experts remain concerned that other, unrelated adverse events might be erroneously attributed to vaccination. For example, if a fall, heart attack, or death occurs within days of immunization, some might immediately blame the vaccine product.
“It’s important to remember that any new, highly touted medical therapy like this will receive a lot of scrutiny, so it would be unusual not to hear about something happening to somebody,” Culver said. Vaccine companies and health agencies will be carefully evaluating any reported adverse events to ensure no safety signal was missed in the trials.
“Fortunately, there are systems in place to investigate these events immediately,” Schaffner said.
Pregnancy recommendations pending
One question still looms: Is the COVID-19 vaccination safe for pregnant women? This isn’t just a question for the general public, either, Schaffner said. He estimated that about 70 percent of healthcare workers are women, and data suggests about 300,000 of these healthcare workers are pregnant.
“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will speak to that just as soon as the EUA is issued,” he added.
Patients are asking Culver about the priority order for vaccination. He said it’s difficult to provide firm guidance at this point.
People also have “lingering skepticism” about whether vaccine development was done in a prudent way, Culver said. Some people question whether the Pfizer vaccine and others were rushed to market. “So we try to spend time with the patients, reassuring them that all the usual safety evaluations were carefully done,” he said.
Another concern is whether mRNA vaccines can interact with human DNA. “The quick, short, and definitive answer is no,” Schaffner said. The m stands for messenger — the vaccines transmit information. "Once it gets into a cell, the mRNA does not go anywhere near the DNA, and once it transmits its information to the cell appropriately, it gets metabolized, and we excrete all the remnants."
Hewlett pointed out that investigations and surveillance will continue. Because this is an EUA and not full approval, “that essentially means they will still be obligated to collect a lot more data than they would ordinarily,” he said.
How long immunoprotection will last also remains an unknown. “The big question left on the table now is the durability,” Culver said. “Of course, we won’t know the answer to that for quite some time.”
Schaffner and Culver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Hewlett was an employee of Pfizer until mid-2019. His previous work as Pfizer’s senior medical director of global medical product evaluation was not associated with development of the COVID-19 vaccine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The much-anticipated emergency use authorization (EUA) of this vaccine — the first such approval in the United States — was greeted with optimism by infectious disease and pulmonary experts, although unanswered questions remain regarding use in people with allergic hypersensitivity, safety in pregnant women, and how smooth distribution will be.
“I am delighted. This is a first, firm step on a long path to getting this COVID pandemic under control,” William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview.
The FDA gave the green light after the December 10 recommendation from the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. The committee voted 17-4 in favor of the emergency authorization.
The COVID-19 vaccine is “going to have a major impact here in the US. I’m very optimistic about it,” Dial Hewlett, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of American (IDSA), told this news organization.
Daniel Culver, DO, chair of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, is likewise hopeful. “My understanding is that supplies of the vaccine are already in place in hubs and will be shipped relatively quickly. The hope would be we can start vaccinating people as early as next week.”
Allergic reactions reported in the UK
After vaccinations with the Pfizer vaccine began in the UK on December 8, reports surfaced of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions. They have since recovered, but officials warned that people with a history of severe allergic reactions should not receive the Pfizer vaccine at this time.
“For the moment, they are asking people who have had notable allergic reactions to step aside while this is investigated. It shows you that the system is working,” Schaffner said.
Both vaccine recipients who experienced anaphylaxis carried EpiPens, as they were at high risk for allergic reactions, Hewlett said. Also, if other COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in the future, people allergic to the Pfizer vaccine might have another option, he added.
Reassuring role models
Schaffner supports the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decision to start vaccinations with healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities.
“Vaccinating healthcare workers, in particular, will be a model for the general public,” said Schaffner, who is also a former member of the IDSA board of directors. “If they see those of us in white coats and blue scrubs lining up for the vaccine, that will provide confidence.”
To further increase acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine, public health officials need to provide information and reassure the general public, Schaffner said.
Hewlett agreed. “I know there are a lot of people in the population who are very hesitant about vaccines. As infection disease specialists and people in public health, we are trying to allay a lot of concerns people have.”
Reassurance will be especially important in minority communities. “They have been disproportionately affected by the virus, and they have a traditional history of not being optimally vaccinated,” Schaffner said. “We need to reach them in particular with good information and reassurance…so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families.”
No vaccine is 100% effective or completely free of side effects. “There is always a chance there can be adverse reactions, but we think for the most part this is going to be a safe and effective vaccine,” said Hewlett, medical director at the Division of Disease Control and deputy to commissioner of health at the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, New York.
Distribution: Smooth or full of strife?
In addition to the concern that some people will not take advantage of vaccination against COVID-19, there could be vaccine supply issues down the road, Schaffner said.
Culver agreed. “In the early phases, I expect that there will be some kinks to work out, but because the numbers are relatively small, this should be okay,” he said.
“I think when we start to get into larger-scale vaccination programs — the supply chain, transport, and storage will be a Herculean undertaking,” Culver added. “It will take careful coordination between healthcare providers, distributors, suppliers, and public health officials to pull this off.”
Planning and distribution also should focus beyond US borders. Any issues in vaccine distribution or administration in the United States “will only be multiplied in several other parts of the world,” Culver said. Because COVID-19 is a pandemic, “we need to think about vaccinating globally.”
Investigating adverse events
Adverse events common to vaccinations in general — injection site pain, headaches, and fever — would not be unexpected with the COVID-19 vaccines. However, experts remain concerned that other, unrelated adverse events might be erroneously attributed to vaccination. For example, if a fall, heart attack, or death occurs within days of immunization, some might immediately blame the vaccine product.
“It’s important to remember that any new, highly touted medical therapy like this will receive a lot of scrutiny, so it would be unusual not to hear about something happening to somebody,” Culver said. Vaccine companies and health agencies will be carefully evaluating any reported adverse events to ensure no safety signal was missed in the trials.
“Fortunately, there are systems in place to investigate these events immediately,” Schaffner said.
Pregnancy recommendations pending
One question still looms: Is the COVID-19 vaccination safe for pregnant women? This isn’t just a question for the general public, either, Schaffner said. He estimated that about 70 percent of healthcare workers are women, and data suggests about 300,000 of these healthcare workers are pregnant.
“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will speak to that just as soon as the EUA is issued,” he added.
Patients are asking Culver about the priority order for vaccination. He said it’s difficult to provide firm guidance at this point.
People also have “lingering skepticism” about whether vaccine development was done in a prudent way, Culver said. Some people question whether the Pfizer vaccine and others were rushed to market. “So we try to spend time with the patients, reassuring them that all the usual safety evaluations were carefully done,” he said.
Another concern is whether mRNA vaccines can interact with human DNA. “The quick, short, and definitive answer is no,” Schaffner said. The m stands for messenger — the vaccines transmit information. "Once it gets into a cell, the mRNA does not go anywhere near the DNA, and once it transmits its information to the cell appropriately, it gets metabolized, and we excrete all the remnants."
Hewlett pointed out that investigations and surveillance will continue. Because this is an EUA and not full approval, “that essentially means they will still be obligated to collect a lot more data than they would ordinarily,” he said.
How long immunoprotection will last also remains an unknown. “The big question left on the table now is the durability,” Culver said. “Of course, we won’t know the answer to that for quite some time.”
Schaffner and Culver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Hewlett was an employee of Pfizer until mid-2019. His previous work as Pfizer’s senior medical director of global medical product evaluation was not associated with development of the COVID-19 vaccine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Just under three million will get COVID-19 vaccine in first week
The federal government says it will distribute only enough doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to immunize 2.9 million Americans in the first week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes it, far less than the initially discussed 6.4 million doses.
Theoretically, states have already formulated plans for distribution based on the revised lower amount. But in a briefing with reporters on December 9, officials from Operation Warp Speed and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) didn’t make clear exactly what the states were expecting.
Vaccine will be shipped to and allocated by 64 jurisdictions and five federal agencies — the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook.
It will be up to states — which will receive a supply prorated to population — and these agencies to determine how to prioritize distribution of the 2.9 million doses. Each state and agency has its own plan. Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, said in the briefing that 30 states have told the federal government they will prioritize initial doses for residents and staff of long-term care facilities.
The distribution is contingent on FDA authorization, which could happen soon. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee weighed the effectiveness data for the Pfizer vaccine on December 10 and recommended that the agency grant emergency authorization. The FDA could issue a decision at any time.
Fewer doses out of the gate
Perna said the federal government will begin shipping the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization.
He said those shipments will include a total of 2.9 million doses — not the 6.4 million that will be available. The government is holding 500,000 doses in reserve and another 2.9 million to guarantee that the first few million people who are vaccinated will be able to receive a second dose 21 days later, said Perna.
In part, that is because the FDA labeling will require that a first dose be followed by a second exactly 21 days later, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in the briefing.
Federal officials have calculated how much to hold back on the basis of Pfizer’s production, said Azar. At least initially, “we will not distribute a vaccine knowing that the booster will not be available either from reserve supply by us or ongoing expected predicted production,” he said.
Even with Pfizer having reduced its estimates of how much vaccine it can deliver in December, Azar said, “There will be enough vaccine available for 20 million first vaccinations in the month of December.”
That estimate is predicated, however, on the idea that a vaccine under development by Moderna will receive clearance shortly after the FDA assesses that vaccine’s safety and effectiveness on December 17.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The federal government says it will distribute only enough doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to immunize 2.9 million Americans in the first week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes it, far less than the initially discussed 6.4 million doses.
Theoretically, states have already formulated plans for distribution based on the revised lower amount. But in a briefing with reporters on December 9, officials from Operation Warp Speed and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) didn’t make clear exactly what the states were expecting.
Vaccine will be shipped to and allocated by 64 jurisdictions and five federal agencies — the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook.
It will be up to states — which will receive a supply prorated to population — and these agencies to determine how to prioritize distribution of the 2.9 million doses. Each state and agency has its own plan. Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, said in the briefing that 30 states have told the federal government they will prioritize initial doses for residents and staff of long-term care facilities.
The distribution is contingent on FDA authorization, which could happen soon. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee weighed the effectiveness data for the Pfizer vaccine on December 10 and recommended that the agency grant emergency authorization. The FDA could issue a decision at any time.
Fewer doses out of the gate
Perna said the federal government will begin shipping the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization.
He said those shipments will include a total of 2.9 million doses — not the 6.4 million that will be available. The government is holding 500,000 doses in reserve and another 2.9 million to guarantee that the first few million people who are vaccinated will be able to receive a second dose 21 days later, said Perna.
In part, that is because the FDA labeling will require that a first dose be followed by a second exactly 21 days later, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in the briefing.
Federal officials have calculated how much to hold back on the basis of Pfizer’s production, said Azar. At least initially, “we will not distribute a vaccine knowing that the booster will not be available either from reserve supply by us or ongoing expected predicted production,” he said.
Even with Pfizer having reduced its estimates of how much vaccine it can deliver in December, Azar said, “There will be enough vaccine available for 20 million first vaccinations in the month of December.”
That estimate is predicated, however, on the idea that a vaccine under development by Moderna will receive clearance shortly after the FDA assesses that vaccine’s safety and effectiveness on December 17.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The federal government says it will distribute only enough doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to immunize 2.9 million Americans in the first week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes it, far less than the initially discussed 6.4 million doses.
Theoretically, states have already formulated plans for distribution based on the revised lower amount. But in a briefing with reporters on December 9, officials from Operation Warp Speed and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) didn’t make clear exactly what the states were expecting.
Vaccine will be shipped to and allocated by 64 jurisdictions and five federal agencies — the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook.
It will be up to states — which will receive a supply prorated to population — and these agencies to determine how to prioritize distribution of the 2.9 million doses. Each state and agency has its own plan. Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, said in the briefing that 30 states have told the federal government they will prioritize initial doses for residents and staff of long-term care facilities.
The distribution is contingent on FDA authorization, which could happen soon. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee weighed the effectiveness data for the Pfizer vaccine on December 10 and recommended that the agency grant emergency authorization. The FDA could issue a decision at any time.
Fewer doses out of the gate
Perna said the federal government will begin shipping the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization.
He said those shipments will include a total of 2.9 million doses — not the 6.4 million that will be available. The government is holding 500,000 doses in reserve and another 2.9 million to guarantee that the first few million people who are vaccinated will be able to receive a second dose 21 days later, said Perna.
In part, that is because the FDA labeling will require that a first dose be followed by a second exactly 21 days later, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in the briefing.
Federal officials have calculated how much to hold back on the basis of Pfizer’s production, said Azar. At least initially, “we will not distribute a vaccine knowing that the booster will not be available either from reserve supply by us or ongoing expected predicted production,” he said.
Even with Pfizer having reduced its estimates of how much vaccine it can deliver in December, Azar said, “There will be enough vaccine available for 20 million first vaccinations in the month of December.”
That estimate is predicated, however, on the idea that a vaccine under development by Moderna will receive clearance shortly after the FDA assesses that vaccine’s safety and effectiveness on December 17.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA panel overwhelmingly backs emergency authorization for Pfizer COVID vaccine
Federal advisers on Thursday told US regulators that the benefits of Pfizer's COVID vaccine outweigh its risks for people aged 16 years and older, moving this product closer to a special emergency clearance.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Pfizer's application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), seeking expert feedback on what is likely to be the first COVID-19 vaccine cleared for use in the United States.
New York-based Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine, known as BNT162b2, which it developed with Germany's BioNTech. The FDA asked its advisers to vote on a single question regarding this product: "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age and older?"
The members of VRBPAC voted 17-4 in favor of the Pfizer vaccine, with one panelist abstaining. The FDA considers the recommendations of its panels, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to quickly grant the special clearance to Pfizer's vaccine, with the company then expected to complete work needed for a more complete biologics license application (BLA).
The FDA often allows members of its advisory committees to explain the reasons for their decisions to vote for or against an application after the tallies are publicly counted.
But the FDA did not give VRBPAC members this opportunity on Thursday, leaving the public without detailed insight into their support or objections.
Before the vote, several panelists had asked if the FDA could rephrase the voting question, raising the age for the approved group to perhaps 18 years of age. During the day, panelists also had questioned whether Pfizer's studies give enough information to judge whether the vaccine works against severe cases of COVID. And there was a discussion about how Pfizer could address concerns about the potential for allergic reactions to the vaccine, given the news of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions after having the vaccine but who have since recovered.
In closing the meeting, VRBPAC chairman, Arnold Monto, MD, noted that the panel will on Dec. 17 meet again to offer recommendations on Moderna Inc.'s COVID vaccine.
"I believe most of us are going to be revisiting some of these issues in about a week," he said.
The panelist who abstained was H. Cody Meissner, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious disease from Tufts University. He earlier was among the several panelists who raised questions about the limited data available about the benefit to those ages 16 and 17. Those voting against the application were Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD; Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD; A. Oveta Fuller, PhD, and David Kim, MD, MA, according to a tally read by the FDA staff after the vote.
Meanwhile, Sheldon Toubman, JD, voted in favor of the application according to the FDA staff's tally. Toubman had been a chief critic among VRBPAC members in reviewing Pfizer's application at the meeting. He'd suggested limiting the EUA to healthcare workers and residents of nursing homes. Members of these two groups are expected to be the first in the US to get Pfizer's vaccine, for which there will be only a limited initial supply. That idea gained no traction.
Toubman also pressed for more evidence that Pfizer's vaccine will work against severe cases of COVID.
The FDA staff on December 8 released a largely positive agency review of Pfizer vaccine. The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. The FDA staff said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3% to 97.6%.
In that review, the FDA staff said there may be a hint from the results observed to date that the Pfizer vaccine may help ward off severe cases of COVID-19. There were 10 study participants that had severe COVID-19 disease after the first dose: one who received the vaccine and nine who received placebo.
"The total number of severe cases is small, which limits the overall conclusions that can be drawn; however, the case split does suggest protection from severe COVID-19 disease," the FDA staff said.
At the meeting today, Doron Fink, MD, PhD, a lead FDA official on the COVID vaccine review, responded directly to Toubman's concerns. There are many examples of vaccines that protect as well if not better against severe disease as they do against mild to moderate disease, Fink said.
"Protecting against disease of any severity is actually a pretty good predictor of protection against severe disease," Fink said, adding that there's already been a "strong result" shown in terms of the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine.
Rolling out
Canadian health regulators on December 9 announced their nation's conditional approval of Pfizer's vaccine for people ages 16 and older. In the United Kingdom, a widely publicized rollout of Pfizer's vaccine began on Dec. 8. News quickly spread about two workers in the National Health Service having allergic reactions following vaccination. Both of these workers carry adrenaline autoinjectors, suggesting they have suffered reactions in the past, the Guardian reported. These kinds of autoinjectors are well known in the United States under the brand name EpiPen.
A noted vaccine expert serving on VRBPAC, Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urged the FDA and Pfizer to investigate any connection between reaction to the vaccine and known allergies. If not fully addressed, reports of the reactions seen in initial vaccinations in the UK could prove to unnecessarily frighten people who have allergies away from getting the COVID shot, he said.
Offit suggested running tests where people with egg and peanut allergies would get the Pfizer vaccine under close medical observation "to prove that this is not going to be a problem."
"This is a practical solution because this issue is not going to die until we have better data," Offit said.
More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have reached advanced stages of testing, including ones developed in Russia and China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The two leading candidates for the US market are the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are among the other companies with COVID-19 vaccines in testing.
The rapid development of COVID vaccines will create challenges in testing these products. A key issue will be how and whether to continue with placebo-controlled trials, even though such research would be helpful, FDA advisers said.
The FDA tasked Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, of Stanford University with presenting an overview of considerations for continuing a placebo-controlled trial as COVID vaccines become available. Once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to the public, people who have received placebo in the Pfizer trial should not be allowed to immediately receive the vaccine, Goodman said.
There isn't a strong medically-based argument against placebo-controlled research in COVID-19, as many people can take steps to reduce their risk for the infection, Goodman said.
"So as long as there are still important things to learn about the vaccine, placebo-controlled trials should not be regarded as unethical," Goodman said. " I think, however, they might be infeasible. And that is a big issue, because people may not be willing to either remain in the study or to enroll."
During the public comment session, a former FDA official spoke of a need for careful consideration of study volunteers' needs in designing trials of COVID-19 vaccines.
"Reasonable people can disagree over whether study subjects should have priority access to a product whose efficacy they helped demonstrate," said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But we ought to be able to agree on this: No subject who has put their body on the line in a vaccine study should be at a disadvantage in terms of vaccine access as a result of their participation."
Lurie argued against extended periods of blinded follow-up after authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a requirement would be "hard to justify ethically, if it is inconsistent with public health recommendations, particularly with rapidly rising case rates and the reported levels of effectiveness" of the Pfizer vaccine, said Lurie, who served as an associate commissioner at FDA from 2014 to 2017.
Lurie also noted the FDA staff's identification of what he called "disproportionate numbers of Bell's Palsy cases (4 in the vaccine groups vs. 0 in the placebo group)" as a matter that should continue to be monitored, including in the postmarketing phase. He raised no objections to the EUA.
Sidney Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, also spoke at the public comment session, citing no objection to an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Like Lurie, he urged special consideration of people who have or will receive placebo in COVID-19 vaccine trials.
The Thursday advisory committee on the Pfizer vaccine differed from those held for many other products. The discussion focused more on how to monitor and evaluate the vaccine once approved, while advisory committees sometimes include a detailed look at whether a company has proven that its product works. One of the special advisers serving temporarily on VRBPAC, Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, also today published an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention."
In the editorial, Rubin and coauthor, Dan L. Longo, MD, called the Pfizer vaccine results seen so far "impressive."
"In the primary analysis, only 8 cases of Covid-19 were seen in the vaccine group, as compared with 162 in the placebo group, for an overall efficacy of 95% (with a 95% credible interval of 90.3 to 97.6%)," they write. "Although the trial does not have the statistical power to assess subgroups, efficacy appeared to be similar in low-risk and high-risk persons, including some from communities that have been disproportionately affected by disease, and in participants older than 55 years of age and those younger than 55."
Intense Scrutiny
The FDA has come under intense scrutiny this year in part because of the aggressive — and ultimately unrealistic — timelines for COVID-19 treatments promoted by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump several times suggested a COVID-19 vaccine could be approved before the November election. Many concerned physicians and scientists including Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, called on FDA staff to fight back against any bid to inappropriately speed the approval process for political reasons.
"Any shortcuts will not only jeopardize the vaccine programs but betray the public trust, which is already fragile about vaccines, and has been made more so by your lack of autonomy from the Trump administration and its overt politicization of the FDA," Topol wrote in an August open letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD.
In an October interview with Topol, Hahn noted that there has been some pushback against the idea of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, with some people preferring to wait for a more complete biological license application.
"When you're talking about a pandemic where people are dying, you want to expedite it as much as possible," Hahn told Topol in the interview.
On Thursday, Hahn issued a public statement about the VRBPAC meeting. Hahn said the FDA's "career staff — made up of physicians, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and other professionals — have been working around the clock to thoroughly evaluate the data and information in the EUA request."
"I can assure you that no vaccine will be authorized for use in the United States until FDA career officials feel confident in allowing their own families to receive it," Hahn said.
Many clinicians offered their views on the FDA meeting during the day on Twitter.
Robert Wachter, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been a vocal opponent of some of Trump's public statements on COVID-19, urged state officials to stick with the FDA's call on the Pfizer vaccine. In a tweet, he noted that officials in California and several other states have called for independent reviews of COVID-19 vaccines.
If such reviews were to delay distribution of vaccines, this would "lead to more harm than good," Wachter tweeted. "Once FDA says 'go', we should go."
This article was updated 12/10/20.
This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Federal advisers on Thursday told US regulators that the benefits of Pfizer's COVID vaccine outweigh its risks for people aged 16 years and older, moving this product closer to a special emergency clearance.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Pfizer's application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), seeking expert feedback on what is likely to be the first COVID-19 vaccine cleared for use in the United States.
New York-based Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine, known as BNT162b2, which it developed with Germany's BioNTech. The FDA asked its advisers to vote on a single question regarding this product: "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age and older?"
The members of VRBPAC voted 17-4 in favor of the Pfizer vaccine, with one panelist abstaining. The FDA considers the recommendations of its panels, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to quickly grant the special clearance to Pfizer's vaccine, with the company then expected to complete work needed for a more complete biologics license application (BLA).
The FDA often allows members of its advisory committees to explain the reasons for their decisions to vote for or against an application after the tallies are publicly counted.
But the FDA did not give VRBPAC members this opportunity on Thursday, leaving the public without detailed insight into their support or objections.
Before the vote, several panelists had asked if the FDA could rephrase the voting question, raising the age for the approved group to perhaps 18 years of age. During the day, panelists also had questioned whether Pfizer's studies give enough information to judge whether the vaccine works against severe cases of COVID. And there was a discussion about how Pfizer could address concerns about the potential for allergic reactions to the vaccine, given the news of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions after having the vaccine but who have since recovered.
In closing the meeting, VRBPAC chairman, Arnold Monto, MD, noted that the panel will on Dec. 17 meet again to offer recommendations on Moderna Inc.'s COVID vaccine.
"I believe most of us are going to be revisiting some of these issues in about a week," he said.
The panelist who abstained was H. Cody Meissner, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious disease from Tufts University. He earlier was among the several panelists who raised questions about the limited data available about the benefit to those ages 16 and 17. Those voting against the application were Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD; Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD; A. Oveta Fuller, PhD, and David Kim, MD, MA, according to a tally read by the FDA staff after the vote.
Meanwhile, Sheldon Toubman, JD, voted in favor of the application according to the FDA staff's tally. Toubman had been a chief critic among VRBPAC members in reviewing Pfizer's application at the meeting. He'd suggested limiting the EUA to healthcare workers and residents of nursing homes. Members of these two groups are expected to be the first in the US to get Pfizer's vaccine, for which there will be only a limited initial supply. That idea gained no traction.
Toubman also pressed for more evidence that Pfizer's vaccine will work against severe cases of COVID.
The FDA staff on December 8 released a largely positive agency review of Pfizer vaccine. The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. The FDA staff said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3% to 97.6%.
In that review, the FDA staff said there may be a hint from the results observed to date that the Pfizer vaccine may help ward off severe cases of COVID-19. There were 10 study participants that had severe COVID-19 disease after the first dose: one who received the vaccine and nine who received placebo.
"The total number of severe cases is small, which limits the overall conclusions that can be drawn; however, the case split does suggest protection from severe COVID-19 disease," the FDA staff said.
At the meeting today, Doron Fink, MD, PhD, a lead FDA official on the COVID vaccine review, responded directly to Toubman's concerns. There are many examples of vaccines that protect as well if not better against severe disease as they do against mild to moderate disease, Fink said.
"Protecting against disease of any severity is actually a pretty good predictor of protection against severe disease," Fink said, adding that there's already been a "strong result" shown in terms of the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine.
Rolling out
Canadian health regulators on December 9 announced their nation's conditional approval of Pfizer's vaccine for people ages 16 and older. In the United Kingdom, a widely publicized rollout of Pfizer's vaccine began on Dec. 8. News quickly spread about two workers in the National Health Service having allergic reactions following vaccination. Both of these workers carry adrenaline autoinjectors, suggesting they have suffered reactions in the past, the Guardian reported. These kinds of autoinjectors are well known in the United States under the brand name EpiPen.
A noted vaccine expert serving on VRBPAC, Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urged the FDA and Pfizer to investigate any connection between reaction to the vaccine and known allergies. If not fully addressed, reports of the reactions seen in initial vaccinations in the UK could prove to unnecessarily frighten people who have allergies away from getting the COVID shot, he said.
Offit suggested running tests where people with egg and peanut allergies would get the Pfizer vaccine under close medical observation "to prove that this is not going to be a problem."
"This is a practical solution because this issue is not going to die until we have better data," Offit said.
More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have reached advanced stages of testing, including ones developed in Russia and China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The two leading candidates for the US market are the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are among the other companies with COVID-19 vaccines in testing.
The rapid development of COVID vaccines will create challenges in testing these products. A key issue will be how and whether to continue with placebo-controlled trials, even though such research would be helpful, FDA advisers said.
The FDA tasked Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, of Stanford University with presenting an overview of considerations for continuing a placebo-controlled trial as COVID vaccines become available. Once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to the public, people who have received placebo in the Pfizer trial should not be allowed to immediately receive the vaccine, Goodman said.
There isn't a strong medically-based argument against placebo-controlled research in COVID-19, as many people can take steps to reduce their risk for the infection, Goodman said.
"So as long as there are still important things to learn about the vaccine, placebo-controlled trials should not be regarded as unethical," Goodman said. " I think, however, they might be infeasible. And that is a big issue, because people may not be willing to either remain in the study or to enroll."
During the public comment session, a former FDA official spoke of a need for careful consideration of study volunteers' needs in designing trials of COVID-19 vaccines.
"Reasonable people can disagree over whether study subjects should have priority access to a product whose efficacy they helped demonstrate," said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But we ought to be able to agree on this: No subject who has put their body on the line in a vaccine study should be at a disadvantage in terms of vaccine access as a result of their participation."
Lurie argued against extended periods of blinded follow-up after authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a requirement would be "hard to justify ethically, if it is inconsistent with public health recommendations, particularly with rapidly rising case rates and the reported levels of effectiveness" of the Pfizer vaccine, said Lurie, who served as an associate commissioner at FDA from 2014 to 2017.
Lurie also noted the FDA staff's identification of what he called "disproportionate numbers of Bell's Palsy cases (4 in the vaccine groups vs. 0 in the placebo group)" as a matter that should continue to be monitored, including in the postmarketing phase. He raised no objections to the EUA.
Sidney Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, also spoke at the public comment session, citing no objection to an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Like Lurie, he urged special consideration of people who have or will receive placebo in COVID-19 vaccine trials.
The Thursday advisory committee on the Pfizer vaccine differed from those held for many other products. The discussion focused more on how to monitor and evaluate the vaccine once approved, while advisory committees sometimes include a detailed look at whether a company has proven that its product works. One of the special advisers serving temporarily on VRBPAC, Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, also today published an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention."
In the editorial, Rubin and coauthor, Dan L. Longo, MD, called the Pfizer vaccine results seen so far "impressive."
"In the primary analysis, only 8 cases of Covid-19 were seen in the vaccine group, as compared with 162 in the placebo group, for an overall efficacy of 95% (with a 95% credible interval of 90.3 to 97.6%)," they write. "Although the trial does not have the statistical power to assess subgroups, efficacy appeared to be similar in low-risk and high-risk persons, including some from communities that have been disproportionately affected by disease, and in participants older than 55 years of age and those younger than 55."
Intense Scrutiny
The FDA has come under intense scrutiny this year in part because of the aggressive — and ultimately unrealistic — timelines for COVID-19 treatments promoted by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump several times suggested a COVID-19 vaccine could be approved before the November election. Many concerned physicians and scientists including Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, called on FDA staff to fight back against any bid to inappropriately speed the approval process for political reasons.
"Any shortcuts will not only jeopardize the vaccine programs but betray the public trust, which is already fragile about vaccines, and has been made more so by your lack of autonomy from the Trump administration and its overt politicization of the FDA," Topol wrote in an August open letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD.
In an October interview with Topol, Hahn noted that there has been some pushback against the idea of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, with some people preferring to wait for a more complete biological license application.
"When you're talking about a pandemic where people are dying, you want to expedite it as much as possible," Hahn told Topol in the interview.
On Thursday, Hahn issued a public statement about the VRBPAC meeting. Hahn said the FDA's "career staff — made up of physicians, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and other professionals — have been working around the clock to thoroughly evaluate the data and information in the EUA request."
"I can assure you that no vaccine will be authorized for use in the United States until FDA career officials feel confident in allowing their own families to receive it," Hahn said.
Many clinicians offered their views on the FDA meeting during the day on Twitter.
Robert Wachter, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been a vocal opponent of some of Trump's public statements on COVID-19, urged state officials to stick with the FDA's call on the Pfizer vaccine. In a tweet, he noted that officials in California and several other states have called for independent reviews of COVID-19 vaccines.
If such reviews were to delay distribution of vaccines, this would "lead to more harm than good," Wachter tweeted. "Once FDA says 'go', we should go."
This article was updated 12/10/20.
This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Federal advisers on Thursday told US regulators that the benefits of Pfizer's COVID vaccine outweigh its risks for people aged 16 years and older, moving this product closer to a special emergency clearance.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Pfizer's application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), seeking expert feedback on what is likely to be the first COVID-19 vaccine cleared for use in the United States.
New York-based Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine, known as BNT162b2, which it developed with Germany's BioNTech. The FDA asked its advisers to vote on a single question regarding this product: "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age and older?"
The members of VRBPAC voted 17-4 in favor of the Pfizer vaccine, with one panelist abstaining. The FDA considers the recommendations of its panels, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to quickly grant the special clearance to Pfizer's vaccine, with the company then expected to complete work needed for a more complete biologics license application (BLA).
The FDA often allows members of its advisory committees to explain the reasons for their decisions to vote for or against an application after the tallies are publicly counted.
But the FDA did not give VRBPAC members this opportunity on Thursday, leaving the public without detailed insight into their support or objections.
Before the vote, several panelists had asked if the FDA could rephrase the voting question, raising the age for the approved group to perhaps 18 years of age. During the day, panelists also had questioned whether Pfizer's studies give enough information to judge whether the vaccine works against severe cases of COVID. And there was a discussion about how Pfizer could address concerns about the potential for allergic reactions to the vaccine, given the news of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions after having the vaccine but who have since recovered.
In closing the meeting, VRBPAC chairman, Arnold Monto, MD, noted that the panel will on Dec. 17 meet again to offer recommendations on Moderna Inc.'s COVID vaccine.
"I believe most of us are going to be revisiting some of these issues in about a week," he said.
The panelist who abstained was H. Cody Meissner, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious disease from Tufts University. He earlier was among the several panelists who raised questions about the limited data available about the benefit to those ages 16 and 17. Those voting against the application were Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD; Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD; A. Oveta Fuller, PhD, and David Kim, MD, MA, according to a tally read by the FDA staff after the vote.
Meanwhile, Sheldon Toubman, JD, voted in favor of the application according to the FDA staff's tally. Toubman had been a chief critic among VRBPAC members in reviewing Pfizer's application at the meeting. He'd suggested limiting the EUA to healthcare workers and residents of nursing homes. Members of these two groups are expected to be the first in the US to get Pfizer's vaccine, for which there will be only a limited initial supply. That idea gained no traction.
Toubman also pressed for more evidence that Pfizer's vaccine will work against severe cases of COVID.
The FDA staff on December 8 released a largely positive agency review of Pfizer vaccine. The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. The FDA staff said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3% to 97.6%.
In that review, the FDA staff said there may be a hint from the results observed to date that the Pfizer vaccine may help ward off severe cases of COVID-19. There were 10 study participants that had severe COVID-19 disease after the first dose: one who received the vaccine and nine who received placebo.
"The total number of severe cases is small, which limits the overall conclusions that can be drawn; however, the case split does suggest protection from severe COVID-19 disease," the FDA staff said.
At the meeting today, Doron Fink, MD, PhD, a lead FDA official on the COVID vaccine review, responded directly to Toubman's concerns. There are many examples of vaccines that protect as well if not better against severe disease as they do against mild to moderate disease, Fink said.
"Protecting against disease of any severity is actually a pretty good predictor of protection against severe disease," Fink said, adding that there's already been a "strong result" shown in terms of the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine.
Rolling out
Canadian health regulators on December 9 announced their nation's conditional approval of Pfizer's vaccine for people ages 16 and older. In the United Kingdom, a widely publicized rollout of Pfizer's vaccine began on Dec. 8. News quickly spread about two workers in the National Health Service having allergic reactions following vaccination. Both of these workers carry adrenaline autoinjectors, suggesting they have suffered reactions in the past, the Guardian reported. These kinds of autoinjectors are well known in the United States under the brand name EpiPen.
A noted vaccine expert serving on VRBPAC, Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urged the FDA and Pfizer to investigate any connection between reaction to the vaccine and known allergies. If not fully addressed, reports of the reactions seen in initial vaccinations in the UK could prove to unnecessarily frighten people who have allergies away from getting the COVID shot, he said.
Offit suggested running tests where people with egg and peanut allergies would get the Pfizer vaccine under close medical observation "to prove that this is not going to be a problem."
"This is a practical solution because this issue is not going to die until we have better data," Offit said.
More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have reached advanced stages of testing, including ones developed in Russia and China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The two leading candidates for the US market are the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are among the other companies with COVID-19 vaccines in testing.
The rapid development of COVID vaccines will create challenges in testing these products. A key issue will be how and whether to continue with placebo-controlled trials, even though such research would be helpful, FDA advisers said.
The FDA tasked Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, of Stanford University with presenting an overview of considerations for continuing a placebo-controlled trial as COVID vaccines become available. Once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to the public, people who have received placebo in the Pfizer trial should not be allowed to immediately receive the vaccine, Goodman said.
There isn't a strong medically-based argument against placebo-controlled research in COVID-19, as many people can take steps to reduce their risk for the infection, Goodman said.
"So as long as there are still important things to learn about the vaccine, placebo-controlled trials should not be regarded as unethical," Goodman said. " I think, however, they might be infeasible. And that is a big issue, because people may not be willing to either remain in the study or to enroll."
During the public comment session, a former FDA official spoke of a need for careful consideration of study volunteers' needs in designing trials of COVID-19 vaccines.
"Reasonable people can disagree over whether study subjects should have priority access to a product whose efficacy they helped demonstrate," said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But we ought to be able to agree on this: No subject who has put their body on the line in a vaccine study should be at a disadvantage in terms of vaccine access as a result of their participation."
Lurie argued against extended periods of blinded follow-up after authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a requirement would be "hard to justify ethically, if it is inconsistent with public health recommendations, particularly with rapidly rising case rates and the reported levels of effectiveness" of the Pfizer vaccine, said Lurie, who served as an associate commissioner at FDA from 2014 to 2017.
Lurie also noted the FDA staff's identification of what he called "disproportionate numbers of Bell's Palsy cases (4 in the vaccine groups vs. 0 in the placebo group)" as a matter that should continue to be monitored, including in the postmarketing phase. He raised no objections to the EUA.
Sidney Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, also spoke at the public comment session, citing no objection to an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Like Lurie, he urged special consideration of people who have or will receive placebo in COVID-19 vaccine trials.
The Thursday advisory committee on the Pfizer vaccine differed from those held for many other products. The discussion focused more on how to monitor and evaluate the vaccine once approved, while advisory committees sometimes include a detailed look at whether a company has proven that its product works. One of the special advisers serving temporarily on VRBPAC, Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, also today published an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention."
In the editorial, Rubin and coauthor, Dan L. Longo, MD, called the Pfizer vaccine results seen so far "impressive."
"In the primary analysis, only 8 cases of Covid-19 were seen in the vaccine group, as compared with 162 in the placebo group, for an overall efficacy of 95% (with a 95% credible interval of 90.3 to 97.6%)," they write. "Although the trial does not have the statistical power to assess subgroups, efficacy appeared to be similar in low-risk and high-risk persons, including some from communities that have been disproportionately affected by disease, and in participants older than 55 years of age and those younger than 55."
Intense Scrutiny
The FDA has come under intense scrutiny this year in part because of the aggressive — and ultimately unrealistic — timelines for COVID-19 treatments promoted by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump several times suggested a COVID-19 vaccine could be approved before the November election. Many concerned physicians and scientists including Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, called on FDA staff to fight back against any bid to inappropriately speed the approval process for political reasons.
"Any shortcuts will not only jeopardize the vaccine programs but betray the public trust, which is already fragile about vaccines, and has been made more so by your lack of autonomy from the Trump administration and its overt politicization of the FDA," Topol wrote in an August open letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD.
In an October interview with Topol, Hahn noted that there has been some pushback against the idea of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, with some people preferring to wait for a more complete biological license application.
"When you're talking about a pandemic where people are dying, you want to expedite it as much as possible," Hahn told Topol in the interview.
On Thursday, Hahn issued a public statement about the VRBPAC meeting. Hahn said the FDA's "career staff — made up of physicians, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and other professionals — have been working around the clock to thoroughly evaluate the data and information in the EUA request."
"I can assure you that no vaccine will be authorized for use in the United States until FDA career officials feel confident in allowing their own families to receive it," Hahn said.
Many clinicians offered their views on the FDA meeting during the day on Twitter.
Robert Wachter, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been a vocal opponent of some of Trump's public statements on COVID-19, urged state officials to stick with the FDA's call on the Pfizer vaccine. In a tweet, he noted that officials in California and several other states have called for independent reviews of COVID-19 vaccines.
If such reviews were to delay distribution of vaccines, this would "lead to more harm than good," Wachter tweeted. "Once FDA says 'go', we should go."
This article was updated 12/10/20.
This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves liraglutide for adolescents with obesity
The Food and Drug Administration’s new indication for liraglutide (Saxenda) for weight loss in adolescents with obesity, announced on Dec. 4, received welcome as a milestone for advancing a field that’s seen no new drug options since 2003 and boosted by 50% the list of agents indicated for weight loss in this age group.
But liraglutide’s track record in adolescents in the key study published earlier in 2020 left some experts unconvinced that liraglutide’s modest effects would have much impact on blunting the expanding cohort of teens who are obese.
“Until now, we’ve had phentermine and orlistat with FDA approval” for adolescents with obesity, and phentermine’s label specifies only patients older than 16 years. “It’s important that the FDA deemed liraglutide’s benefits greater than its risks for adolescents,” said Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, leader of the 82-week, multicenter, randomized study of liraglutide in 251 adolescents with obesity that directly led to the FDA’s action.
“We have results from a strong, published randomized trial, and the green light from the FDA, and that should give clinicians reassurance and confidence to use liraglutide clinically,” said Dr. Kelly, professor of pediatrics and codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
An ‘unimpressive’ drop in BMI
Sonia Caprio, MD, had a more skeptical take on liraglutide’s role with its new indication: “Approval of higher-dose liraglutide is an improvement that reflects a willingness to accept adolescent obesity as a disease that needs treatment with pharmacological agents. However, the study, published in New England Journal of Medicine, was not impressive in terms of weight loss, and more importantly liraglutide was not associated with any significant changes in metabolic markers” such as insulin resistance, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, lipoproteins and triglycerides, and hemoglobin A1c.
The observed average 5% drop in body mass index seen after a year on liraglutide treatment, compared with baseline and relative to no average change from baseline in the placebo arm, was “totally insufficient, and will not diminish any of the metabolic complications in youth with obesity,” commented Dr. Caprio, an endocrinologist and professor of pediatrics at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
Results from the study led by Dr. Kelly also showed that liraglutide for 56 weeks cut BMI by 5% in 43% of patients, and by 10% in 26%, compared with respective rates of 19% and 8% among those in the placebo-control arm. He took a more expansive view of the potential benefits from weight loss of the caliber demonstrated by liraglutide in the study.
“In general, we wait too long with obesity in children; the earlier the intervention the better. A 3% or 4% reduction in BMI at 12 or 13 years old can pay big dividends down the road” when a typical adolescent trajectory of steadily rising weight can be flattened, he said in an interview.
Bariatric and metabolic surgery, although highly effective and usually safe, is seen by many clinicians, patients, and families as an “intervention of last resort,” and its very low level of uptake in adolescents bears witness to that reputation. It also creates an important niche for safe and effective drugs to fill as an adjunct to lifestyle changes, which are often ineffective when used by themselves. Liraglutide’s main mechanism for weight loss is depressing hunger, Dr. Kelly noted.
Existing meds have limitations
The existing medical treatments, orlistat and phentermine, both have significant drawbacks that limit their use. Orlistat (Xenical, Alli), FDA approved for adolescents 12-16 years old since 2003, limits intestinal fat absorption and as a result often produces unwanted GI effects. Phentermine’s approval for older adolescents dates from 1959 and has a weak evidence base, its label limits it to “short-term” use that’s generally taken to mean a maximum of 12 weeks. And, as a stimulant, phentermine has often been regarded as potentially dangerous, although Dr. Kelly noted that stimulants are well-accepted treatments for other disorders in children and adolescents.
“The earlier we treat obesity in youth, the better, given that it tends to track into adulthood,” agreed Dr. Caprio. “However, it remains to be seen whether weight reduction with a pharmacological agent is going to help prevent the intractable trajectories of weight and its complications. So far, it looks like surgery may be more efficacious,” she said in an interview.
Another drawback for the near future with liraglutide will likely be its cost for many patients, more than $10,000/year at full retail prices for the weight-loss formulation, given that insurers have had a poor record of covering the drug for this indication in adults, both Dr. Caprio and Dr. Kelly noted.
Compliance with liraglutide is also important. Dr. Kelly’s study followed patients for their first 26 weeks off treatment after 56 weeks on the drug, and showed that on average weights rebounded to virtually baseline levels by 6 months after treatment stopped.
Obesity treatment lasts a lifetime
“Obesity is a chronic disease, that requires chronic treatment, just like hypertension,” Dr. Kelly stressed, and cited the rebound seen in his study when liraglutide stopped as further proof of that concept. “All obesity treatment is lifelong,” he maintained.
He highlighted the importance of clinicians discussing with adolescent patients and their families the prospect of potentially remaining on liraglutide treatment for years to maintain weight loss. His experience with the randomized study convinced him that many adolescents with obesity are amenable to daily subcutaneous injection using the pen device that liraglutide comes in, but he acknowledged that some teens find this off-putting.
For the near term, Dr. Kelly foresaw liraglutide treatment of adolescents as something that will mostly be administered to patients who seek care at centers that specialize in obesity management. “I’ll think we’ll eventually see it move to more primary care settings, but that will be down the road.”
The study of liraglutide in adolescents was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets liraglutide (Saxenda). Dr. Kelly has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and also to Orexigen Therapeutics, Vivus, and WW, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Caprio had no disclosures.
The Food and Drug Administration’s new indication for liraglutide (Saxenda) for weight loss in adolescents with obesity, announced on Dec. 4, received welcome as a milestone for advancing a field that’s seen no new drug options since 2003 and boosted by 50% the list of agents indicated for weight loss in this age group.
But liraglutide’s track record in adolescents in the key study published earlier in 2020 left some experts unconvinced that liraglutide’s modest effects would have much impact on blunting the expanding cohort of teens who are obese.
“Until now, we’ve had phentermine and orlistat with FDA approval” for adolescents with obesity, and phentermine’s label specifies only patients older than 16 years. “It’s important that the FDA deemed liraglutide’s benefits greater than its risks for adolescents,” said Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, leader of the 82-week, multicenter, randomized study of liraglutide in 251 adolescents with obesity that directly led to the FDA’s action.
“We have results from a strong, published randomized trial, and the green light from the FDA, and that should give clinicians reassurance and confidence to use liraglutide clinically,” said Dr. Kelly, professor of pediatrics and codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
An ‘unimpressive’ drop in BMI
Sonia Caprio, MD, had a more skeptical take on liraglutide’s role with its new indication: “Approval of higher-dose liraglutide is an improvement that reflects a willingness to accept adolescent obesity as a disease that needs treatment with pharmacological agents. However, the study, published in New England Journal of Medicine, was not impressive in terms of weight loss, and more importantly liraglutide was not associated with any significant changes in metabolic markers” such as insulin resistance, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, lipoproteins and triglycerides, and hemoglobin A1c.
The observed average 5% drop in body mass index seen after a year on liraglutide treatment, compared with baseline and relative to no average change from baseline in the placebo arm, was “totally insufficient, and will not diminish any of the metabolic complications in youth with obesity,” commented Dr. Caprio, an endocrinologist and professor of pediatrics at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
Results from the study led by Dr. Kelly also showed that liraglutide for 56 weeks cut BMI by 5% in 43% of patients, and by 10% in 26%, compared with respective rates of 19% and 8% among those in the placebo-control arm. He took a more expansive view of the potential benefits from weight loss of the caliber demonstrated by liraglutide in the study.
“In general, we wait too long with obesity in children; the earlier the intervention the better. A 3% or 4% reduction in BMI at 12 or 13 years old can pay big dividends down the road” when a typical adolescent trajectory of steadily rising weight can be flattened, he said in an interview.
Bariatric and metabolic surgery, although highly effective and usually safe, is seen by many clinicians, patients, and families as an “intervention of last resort,” and its very low level of uptake in adolescents bears witness to that reputation. It also creates an important niche for safe and effective drugs to fill as an adjunct to lifestyle changes, which are often ineffective when used by themselves. Liraglutide’s main mechanism for weight loss is depressing hunger, Dr. Kelly noted.
Existing meds have limitations
The existing medical treatments, orlistat and phentermine, both have significant drawbacks that limit their use. Orlistat (Xenical, Alli), FDA approved for adolescents 12-16 years old since 2003, limits intestinal fat absorption and as a result often produces unwanted GI effects. Phentermine’s approval for older adolescents dates from 1959 and has a weak evidence base, its label limits it to “short-term” use that’s generally taken to mean a maximum of 12 weeks. And, as a stimulant, phentermine has often been regarded as potentially dangerous, although Dr. Kelly noted that stimulants are well-accepted treatments for other disorders in children and adolescents.
“The earlier we treat obesity in youth, the better, given that it tends to track into adulthood,” agreed Dr. Caprio. “However, it remains to be seen whether weight reduction with a pharmacological agent is going to help prevent the intractable trajectories of weight and its complications. So far, it looks like surgery may be more efficacious,” she said in an interview.
Another drawback for the near future with liraglutide will likely be its cost for many patients, more than $10,000/year at full retail prices for the weight-loss formulation, given that insurers have had a poor record of covering the drug for this indication in adults, both Dr. Caprio and Dr. Kelly noted.
Compliance with liraglutide is also important. Dr. Kelly’s study followed patients for their first 26 weeks off treatment after 56 weeks on the drug, and showed that on average weights rebounded to virtually baseline levels by 6 months after treatment stopped.
Obesity treatment lasts a lifetime
“Obesity is a chronic disease, that requires chronic treatment, just like hypertension,” Dr. Kelly stressed, and cited the rebound seen in his study when liraglutide stopped as further proof of that concept. “All obesity treatment is lifelong,” he maintained.
He highlighted the importance of clinicians discussing with adolescent patients and their families the prospect of potentially remaining on liraglutide treatment for years to maintain weight loss. His experience with the randomized study convinced him that many adolescents with obesity are amenable to daily subcutaneous injection using the pen device that liraglutide comes in, but he acknowledged that some teens find this off-putting.
For the near term, Dr. Kelly foresaw liraglutide treatment of adolescents as something that will mostly be administered to patients who seek care at centers that specialize in obesity management. “I’ll think we’ll eventually see it move to more primary care settings, but that will be down the road.”
The study of liraglutide in adolescents was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets liraglutide (Saxenda). Dr. Kelly has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and also to Orexigen Therapeutics, Vivus, and WW, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Caprio had no disclosures.
The Food and Drug Administration’s new indication for liraglutide (Saxenda) for weight loss in adolescents with obesity, announced on Dec. 4, received welcome as a milestone for advancing a field that’s seen no new drug options since 2003 and boosted by 50% the list of agents indicated for weight loss in this age group.
But liraglutide’s track record in adolescents in the key study published earlier in 2020 left some experts unconvinced that liraglutide’s modest effects would have much impact on blunting the expanding cohort of teens who are obese.
“Until now, we’ve had phentermine and orlistat with FDA approval” for adolescents with obesity, and phentermine’s label specifies only patients older than 16 years. “It’s important that the FDA deemed liraglutide’s benefits greater than its risks for adolescents,” said Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, leader of the 82-week, multicenter, randomized study of liraglutide in 251 adolescents with obesity that directly led to the FDA’s action.
“We have results from a strong, published randomized trial, and the green light from the FDA, and that should give clinicians reassurance and confidence to use liraglutide clinically,” said Dr. Kelly, professor of pediatrics and codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
An ‘unimpressive’ drop in BMI
Sonia Caprio, MD, had a more skeptical take on liraglutide’s role with its new indication: “Approval of higher-dose liraglutide is an improvement that reflects a willingness to accept adolescent obesity as a disease that needs treatment with pharmacological agents. However, the study, published in New England Journal of Medicine, was not impressive in terms of weight loss, and more importantly liraglutide was not associated with any significant changes in metabolic markers” such as insulin resistance, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, lipoproteins and triglycerides, and hemoglobin A1c.
The observed average 5% drop in body mass index seen after a year on liraglutide treatment, compared with baseline and relative to no average change from baseline in the placebo arm, was “totally insufficient, and will not diminish any of the metabolic complications in youth with obesity,” commented Dr. Caprio, an endocrinologist and professor of pediatrics at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
Results from the study led by Dr. Kelly also showed that liraglutide for 56 weeks cut BMI by 5% in 43% of patients, and by 10% in 26%, compared with respective rates of 19% and 8% among those in the placebo-control arm. He took a more expansive view of the potential benefits from weight loss of the caliber demonstrated by liraglutide in the study.
“In general, we wait too long with obesity in children; the earlier the intervention the better. A 3% or 4% reduction in BMI at 12 or 13 years old can pay big dividends down the road” when a typical adolescent trajectory of steadily rising weight can be flattened, he said in an interview.
Bariatric and metabolic surgery, although highly effective and usually safe, is seen by many clinicians, patients, and families as an “intervention of last resort,” and its very low level of uptake in adolescents bears witness to that reputation. It also creates an important niche for safe and effective drugs to fill as an adjunct to lifestyle changes, which are often ineffective when used by themselves. Liraglutide’s main mechanism for weight loss is depressing hunger, Dr. Kelly noted.
Existing meds have limitations
The existing medical treatments, orlistat and phentermine, both have significant drawbacks that limit their use. Orlistat (Xenical, Alli), FDA approved for adolescents 12-16 years old since 2003, limits intestinal fat absorption and as a result often produces unwanted GI effects. Phentermine’s approval for older adolescents dates from 1959 and has a weak evidence base, its label limits it to “short-term” use that’s generally taken to mean a maximum of 12 weeks. And, as a stimulant, phentermine has often been regarded as potentially dangerous, although Dr. Kelly noted that stimulants are well-accepted treatments for other disorders in children and adolescents.
“The earlier we treat obesity in youth, the better, given that it tends to track into adulthood,” agreed Dr. Caprio. “However, it remains to be seen whether weight reduction with a pharmacological agent is going to help prevent the intractable trajectories of weight and its complications. So far, it looks like surgery may be more efficacious,” she said in an interview.
Another drawback for the near future with liraglutide will likely be its cost for many patients, more than $10,000/year at full retail prices for the weight-loss formulation, given that insurers have had a poor record of covering the drug for this indication in adults, both Dr. Caprio and Dr. Kelly noted.
Compliance with liraglutide is also important. Dr. Kelly’s study followed patients for their first 26 weeks off treatment after 56 weeks on the drug, and showed that on average weights rebounded to virtually baseline levels by 6 months after treatment stopped.
Obesity treatment lasts a lifetime
“Obesity is a chronic disease, that requires chronic treatment, just like hypertension,” Dr. Kelly stressed, and cited the rebound seen in his study when liraglutide stopped as further proof of that concept. “All obesity treatment is lifelong,” he maintained.
He highlighted the importance of clinicians discussing with adolescent patients and their families the prospect of potentially remaining on liraglutide treatment for years to maintain weight loss. His experience with the randomized study convinced him that many adolescents with obesity are amenable to daily subcutaneous injection using the pen device that liraglutide comes in, but he acknowledged that some teens find this off-putting.
For the near term, Dr. Kelly foresaw liraglutide treatment of adolescents as something that will mostly be administered to patients who seek care at centers that specialize in obesity management. “I’ll think we’ll eventually see it move to more primary care settings, but that will be down the road.”
The study of liraglutide in adolescents was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets liraglutide (Saxenda). Dr. Kelly has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and also to Orexigen Therapeutics, Vivus, and WW, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Caprio had no disclosures.
