News from the FDA/CDC

The hugely popular weight loss agent semaglutide (approved as Wegovy for weight loss; Ozempic for type 2 diabetes; Novo Nordisk) received a pair of drug safety–related labeling additions from the Food and Drug Administration in late September for the Ozempic formulation.

The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempic label that reiterates a warning that is already in place in other label sections, reinforcing the message that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist Ozempic can potentially interact with the action of certain other agents to increase a person’s risk for hypoglycemia.

The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”

This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”

Reports of ileus episodes after approval

The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.

The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.

“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.

The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).

The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The hugely popular weight loss agent semaglutide (approved as Wegovy for weight loss; Ozempic for type 2 diabetes; Novo Nordisk) received a pair of drug safety–related labeling additions from the Food and Drug Administration in late September for the Ozempic formulation.

The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempic label that reiterates a warning that is already in place in other label sections, reinforcing the message that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist Ozempic can potentially interact with the action of certain other agents to increase a person’s risk for hypoglycemia.

The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”

This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”

Reports of ileus episodes after approval

The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.

The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.

“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.

The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).

The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The hugely popular weight loss agent semaglutide (approved as Wegovy for weight loss; Ozempic for type 2 diabetes; Novo Nordisk) received a pair of drug safety–related labeling additions from the Food and Drug Administration in late September for the Ozempic formulation.

The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempic label that reiterates a warning that is already in place in other label sections, reinforcing the message that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist Ozempic can potentially interact with the action of certain other agents to increase a person’s risk for hypoglycemia.

The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”

This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”

Reports of ileus episodes after approval

The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.

The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.

“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.

The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).

The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small, nonmechanical, implanted device that continuously releases the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon) and designed for improving glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes received a resounding, unanimous rejection Sept. 21 from an advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration.

The 19 voting panel members mostly cited concerning signals of both renal toxicity in the form of excess episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) as well as increased cardiovascular events compared with placebo as their main reasons for voting that the developing company, Intarcia Therapeutics, had not shown adequate evidence that the benefits of the drug-device combination, known as ITCA 650, outweighed its risks for treating people with type 2 diabetes.

“I’m quite uncomfortable with the AKI safety,” said panel member Erica Brittain, PhD, deputy chief of the Biostatistics Research Branch of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md.

The case that ITCA 650 is ready for routine use was also undermined by uncertainty documented by FDA staff about the uniformity and reliability of exenatide delivery by the DUROS device, a matchstick-sized reservoir that’s placed subcutaneously and designed to deliver exenatide continuously for 6 months at a time, noted Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
 

“No evidence of improved adherence”

Another shortcoming was no data on the impact that this form of drug delivery, first developed and FDA approved to treat patients with prostate cancer with leuprolide acetate, really accomplished its goal of improving adherence to a glycemic-control agent. Intarcia Therapeutics presented “no evidence of improved adherence,” said Dr. Low Wang, director of the Glucose Management Team at the University of Colorado Hospital.

However, she and several other panel members acknowledged the compelling comments from several patients and health care professionals experienced in using or administering the device who, during the public comment period, voiced anecdotal testimonials to its positive impact on treatment compliance.
 

Seven years of FDA review

This review of ITCA 650 capped a nearly 7-year effort by Intarcia Therapeutics to receive marketing approval for ITCA 650 from the FDA, which began with an application filed in November 2016 (and denied by the agency in September 2017). Intarcia resubmitted an amended application in 2019 that the FDA again rejected in 2020. The company’s persistence following that led to the current panel meeting, the first time the ITCA 650 evidence came before an advisory panel.

Committee members in general praised the concept of managing blood glucose by continuous release of a medication 6 months at a time. They also offered ideas on a path forward, such as a study that used an active competitor. Ideally, that could be another agent from the same class of GLP-1 receptor agonists such as Bydureon, an injected formulation of exenatide administered by subcutaneous injection once a week. 

But the key, agreed panel members, was to bulk up the evidence that ITCA 650 is safe. “The data show concerning safety signals that need further investigation,” summed up Dr. Low Wong. “There are concerns about overall safety, all-cause mortality, AKI, cardiovascular events, and glycemic excursions.”

All voting members of the advisory committee met the FDA’s standard for having no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A small, nonmechanical, implanted device that continuously releases the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon) and designed for improving glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes received a resounding, unanimous rejection Sept. 21 from an advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration.

The 19 voting panel members mostly cited concerning signals of both renal toxicity in the form of excess episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) as well as increased cardiovascular events compared with placebo as their main reasons for voting that the developing company, Intarcia Therapeutics, had not shown adequate evidence that the benefits of the drug-device combination, known as ITCA 650, outweighed its risks for treating people with type 2 diabetes.

“I’m quite uncomfortable with the AKI safety,” said panel member Erica Brittain, PhD, deputy chief of the Biostatistics Research Branch of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md.

The case that ITCA 650 is ready for routine use was also undermined by uncertainty documented by FDA staff about the uniformity and reliability of exenatide delivery by the DUROS device, a matchstick-sized reservoir that’s placed subcutaneously and designed to deliver exenatide continuously for 6 months at a time, noted Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
 

“No evidence of improved adherence”

Another shortcoming was no data on the impact that this form of drug delivery, first developed and FDA approved to treat patients with prostate cancer with leuprolide acetate, really accomplished its goal of improving adherence to a glycemic-control agent. Intarcia Therapeutics presented “no evidence of improved adherence,” said Dr. Low Wang, director of the Glucose Management Team at the University of Colorado Hospital.

However, she and several other panel members acknowledged the compelling comments from several patients and health care professionals experienced in using or administering the device who, during the public comment period, voiced anecdotal testimonials to its positive impact on treatment compliance.
 

Seven years of FDA review

This review of ITCA 650 capped a nearly 7-year effort by Intarcia Therapeutics to receive marketing approval for ITCA 650 from the FDA, which began with an application filed in November 2016 (and denied by the agency in September 2017). Intarcia resubmitted an amended application in 2019 that the FDA again rejected in 2020. The company’s persistence following that led to the current panel meeting, the first time the ITCA 650 evidence came before an advisory panel.

Committee members in general praised the concept of managing blood glucose by continuous release of a medication 6 months at a time. They also offered ideas on a path forward, such as a study that used an active competitor. Ideally, that could be another agent from the same class of GLP-1 receptor agonists such as Bydureon, an injected formulation of exenatide administered by subcutaneous injection once a week. 

But the key, agreed panel members, was to bulk up the evidence that ITCA 650 is safe. “The data show concerning safety signals that need further investigation,” summed up Dr. Low Wong. “There are concerns about overall safety, all-cause mortality, AKI, cardiovascular events, and glycemic excursions.”

All voting members of the advisory committee met the FDA’s standard for having no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A small, nonmechanical, implanted device that continuously releases the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon) and designed for improving glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes received a resounding, unanimous rejection Sept. 21 from an advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration.

The 19 voting panel members mostly cited concerning signals of both renal toxicity in the form of excess episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) as well as increased cardiovascular events compared with placebo as their main reasons for voting that the developing company, Intarcia Therapeutics, had not shown adequate evidence that the benefits of the drug-device combination, known as ITCA 650, outweighed its risks for treating people with type 2 diabetes.

“I’m quite uncomfortable with the AKI safety,” said panel member Erica Brittain, PhD, deputy chief of the Biostatistics Research Branch of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md.

The case that ITCA 650 is ready for routine use was also undermined by uncertainty documented by FDA staff about the uniformity and reliability of exenatide delivery by the DUROS device, a matchstick-sized reservoir that’s placed subcutaneously and designed to deliver exenatide continuously for 6 months at a time, noted Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
 

“No evidence of improved adherence”

Another shortcoming was no data on the impact that this form of drug delivery, first developed and FDA approved to treat patients with prostate cancer with leuprolide acetate, really accomplished its goal of improving adherence to a glycemic-control agent. Intarcia Therapeutics presented “no evidence of improved adherence,” said Dr. Low Wang, director of the Glucose Management Team at the University of Colorado Hospital.

However, she and several other panel members acknowledged the compelling comments from several patients and health care professionals experienced in using or administering the device who, during the public comment period, voiced anecdotal testimonials to its positive impact on treatment compliance.
 

Seven years of FDA review

This review of ITCA 650 capped a nearly 7-year effort by Intarcia Therapeutics to receive marketing approval for ITCA 650 from the FDA, which began with an application filed in November 2016 (and denied by the agency in September 2017). Intarcia resubmitted an amended application in 2019 that the FDA again rejected in 2020. The company’s persistence following that led to the current panel meeting, the first time the ITCA 650 evidence came before an advisory panel.

Committee members in general praised the concept of managing blood glucose by continuous release of a medication 6 months at a time. They also offered ideas on a path forward, such as a study that used an active competitor. Ideally, that could be another agent from the same class of GLP-1 receptor agonists such as Bydureon, an injected formulation of exenatide administered by subcutaneous injection once a week. 

But the key, agreed panel members, was to bulk up the evidence that ITCA 650 is safe. “The data show concerning safety signals that need further investigation,” summed up Dr. Low Wong. “There are concerns about overall safety, all-cause mortality, AKI, cardiovascular events, and glycemic excursions.”

All voting members of the advisory committee met the FDA’s standard for having no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The RNA interference therapeutic patisiran (Onpattro) is one step closer to being approved in the United States for treatment of transthyretin-mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy.

The Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration has voted 9 to 3 that the benefits of patisiran outweigh the risks for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy – although many panel members questioned whether the benefits are clinically meaningful.

ATTR amyloidosis is an underdiagnosed, rapidly progressive, debilitating, and fatal disease caused by misfolded TTR proteins, which accumulate as amyloid deposits in various parts of the body, including the heart.

Intravenously administered patisiran is already approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hereditary ATTR amyloidosis in adults.

In the APOLLO-B trial, patisiran showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test, compared with placebo, in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy.

The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.

But in explaining her “no” vote, committee member C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she “did not feel like there was benefit” using existing clinically relevant thresholds typically used in cardiology.

Committee chair Javed Butler, MD, MPH, Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, who also voted no, said he “struggled” with this vote and emphasized that it “absolutely does not reflect that there is not a potential with the therapy.”

Dr. Butler said he voted no largely because he wasn’t sure whether the benefits are clinically meaningful in the context of the study design and how it was conducted. He did not have any safety concerns, which was the general feeling of the committee.

Edward Kasper, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who voted in favor of patisiran for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, said there is a “light wind for benefit and no wind for risk. So, if you’re asking do benefits outweigh the risks, the answer is yes.”

But Dr. Kasper also noted: “It would have been a more difficult question to answer: Is there clinically meaningful benefit versus risk? But that’s not what the question asked.”

In explaining his “yes” vote, Ravi Thadhani, MD, MPH, Emory University, Atlanta, said: “We’re dealing with a rare disease with few options and devastating consequences. We heard from clinicians loud and clear, and from patients for that matter, that options and alternatives are critical, and that there is a continuous decline of cardiac function and worsening of disease in a number of patients that have received the current standard of care. For me, the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Dr. Thadhani also noted that from the data provided, no benefit was shown – ”disappointingly” he lamented – for women, for Black persons, and among individuals who were receiving tafamidis, and he urged the FDA and sponsor to consider this.

The FDA has set a target action date for patisiran for ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy of Oct. 8.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The RNA interference therapeutic patisiran (Onpattro) is one step closer to being approved in the United States for treatment of transthyretin-mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy.

The Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration has voted 9 to 3 that the benefits of patisiran outweigh the risks for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy – although many panel members questioned whether the benefits are clinically meaningful.

ATTR amyloidosis is an underdiagnosed, rapidly progressive, debilitating, and fatal disease caused by misfolded TTR proteins, which accumulate as amyloid deposits in various parts of the body, including the heart.

Intravenously administered patisiran is already approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hereditary ATTR amyloidosis in adults.

In the APOLLO-B trial, patisiran showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test, compared with placebo, in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy.

The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.

But in explaining her “no” vote, committee member C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she “did not feel like there was benefit” using existing clinically relevant thresholds typically used in cardiology.

Committee chair Javed Butler, MD, MPH, Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, who also voted no, said he “struggled” with this vote and emphasized that it “absolutely does not reflect that there is not a potential with the therapy.”

Dr. Butler said he voted no largely because he wasn’t sure whether the benefits are clinically meaningful in the context of the study design and how it was conducted. He did not have any safety concerns, which was the general feeling of the committee.

Edward Kasper, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who voted in favor of patisiran for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, said there is a “light wind for benefit and no wind for risk. So, if you’re asking do benefits outweigh the risks, the answer is yes.”

But Dr. Kasper also noted: “It would have been a more difficult question to answer: Is there clinically meaningful benefit versus risk? But that’s not what the question asked.”

In explaining his “yes” vote, Ravi Thadhani, MD, MPH, Emory University, Atlanta, said: “We’re dealing with a rare disease with few options and devastating consequences. We heard from clinicians loud and clear, and from patients for that matter, that options and alternatives are critical, and that there is a continuous decline of cardiac function and worsening of disease in a number of patients that have received the current standard of care. For me, the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Dr. Thadhani also noted that from the data provided, no benefit was shown – ”disappointingly” he lamented – for women, for Black persons, and among individuals who were receiving tafamidis, and he urged the FDA and sponsor to consider this.

The FDA has set a target action date for patisiran for ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy of Oct. 8.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The RNA interference therapeutic patisiran (Onpattro) is one step closer to being approved in the United States for treatment of transthyretin-mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy.

The Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration has voted 9 to 3 that the benefits of patisiran outweigh the risks for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy – although many panel members questioned whether the benefits are clinically meaningful.

ATTR amyloidosis is an underdiagnosed, rapidly progressive, debilitating, and fatal disease caused by misfolded TTR proteins, which accumulate as amyloid deposits in various parts of the body, including the heart.

Intravenously administered patisiran is already approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hereditary ATTR amyloidosis in adults.

In the APOLLO-B trial, patisiran showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test, compared with placebo, in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy.

The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.

But in explaining her “no” vote, committee member C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she “did not feel like there was benefit” using existing clinically relevant thresholds typically used in cardiology.

Committee chair Javed Butler, MD, MPH, Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, who also voted no, said he “struggled” with this vote and emphasized that it “absolutely does not reflect that there is not a potential with the therapy.”

Dr. Butler said he voted no largely because he wasn’t sure whether the benefits are clinically meaningful in the context of the study design and how it was conducted. He did not have any safety concerns, which was the general feeling of the committee.

Edward Kasper, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who voted in favor of patisiran for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, said there is a “light wind for benefit and no wind for risk. So, if you’re asking do benefits outweigh the risks, the answer is yes.”

But Dr. Kasper also noted: “It would have been a more difficult question to answer: Is there clinically meaningful benefit versus risk? But that’s not what the question asked.”

In explaining his “yes” vote, Ravi Thadhani, MD, MPH, Emory University, Atlanta, said: “We’re dealing with a rare disease with few options and devastating consequences. We heard from clinicians loud and clear, and from patients for that matter, that options and alternatives are critical, and that there is a continuous decline of cardiac function and worsening of disease in a number of patients that have received the current standard of care. For me, the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Dr. Thadhani also noted that from the data provided, no benefit was shown – ”disappointingly” he lamented – for women, for Black persons, and among individuals who were receiving tafamidis, and he urged the FDA and sponsor to consider this.

The FDA has set a target action date for patisiran for ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy of Oct. 8.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

America’s most popular oral nasal decongestant, phenylephrine, was deemed ineffective by a Food and Drug Administration panel in a unanimous vote on Sept. 12.

The Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee discussed the efficacy and pharmacokinetic data for phenylephrine. The committee’s next move is to determine if the drug’s status as Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective should be revoked. This would mean manufacturers would have to come up with new formulations, or products containing the drug would be removed from store shelves. NDAC did not disclose a timeline for assessing GRASE status.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

America’s most popular oral nasal decongestant, phenylephrine, was deemed ineffective by a Food and Drug Administration panel in a unanimous vote on Sept. 12.

The Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee discussed the efficacy and pharmacokinetic data for phenylephrine. The committee’s next move is to determine if the drug’s status as Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective should be revoked. This would mean manufacturers would have to come up with new formulations, or products containing the drug would be removed from store shelves. NDAC did not disclose a timeline for assessing GRASE status.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

America’s most popular oral nasal decongestant, phenylephrine, was deemed ineffective by a Food and Drug Administration panel in a unanimous vote on Sept. 12.

The Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee discussed the efficacy and pharmacokinetic data for phenylephrine. The committee’s next move is to determine if the drug’s status as Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective should be revoked. This would mean manufacturers would have to come up with new formulations, or products containing the drug would be removed from store shelves. NDAC did not disclose a timeline for assessing GRASE status.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved canakinumab (Ilaris) for the treatment of gout flares in adults who cannot be treated with NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids. The drug is also indicated for people who could not tolerate or had an inadequate response to NSAIDs or colchicine.

The drug, a humanized anti–interleukin-1 beta monoclonal antibody, is the first and only biologic approved in the United States for the treatment of gout flares, according to Novartis. It is administered in a single, subcutaneous injection of 150 mg.

“At Novartis, we are committed to bringing medicines that address high unmet needs to patients. We are proud to receive approval on our eighth indication for Ilaris in the U.S. and provide the first biologic medicine option for people with gout flares to help treat this painful and debilitating condition,” the company said in a statement to this news organization.

Canakinumab was first approved in the United States in 2009 for the treatment of children and adults with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Since then, it has been approved for the treatment of several other autoinflammatory diseases, including Still’s disease and recurrent fever syndromes.

In 2011, an FDA advisory panel voted against the approval of canakinumab to treat acute gout flares refractory to NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids, while in 2013, the European Medicine Agency approved the drug for this treatment indication.

Since that FDA advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s subsequent rejection letter, “[Novartis] has conducted additional studies in patients with gout flares and other related populations to further characterize the short- and long-term safety of canakinumab supporting the current application. To further support the benefit-risk [profile of the drug], the indication is for a more restricted population than initially proposed in 2011,” the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement to this news organization. “Given these considerations and the available safety information, the Agency determined that canakinumab, at the recommended dosage, has a favorable risk-benefit profile” in the specified patient population.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved canakinumab (Ilaris) for the treatment of gout flares in adults who cannot be treated with NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids. The drug is also indicated for people who could not tolerate or had an inadequate response to NSAIDs or colchicine.

The drug, a humanized anti–interleukin-1 beta monoclonal antibody, is the first and only biologic approved in the United States for the treatment of gout flares, according to Novartis. It is administered in a single, subcutaneous injection of 150 mg.

“At Novartis, we are committed to bringing medicines that address high unmet needs to patients. We are proud to receive approval on our eighth indication for Ilaris in the U.S. and provide the first biologic medicine option for people with gout flares to help treat this painful and debilitating condition,” the company said in a statement to this news organization.

Canakinumab was first approved in the United States in 2009 for the treatment of children and adults with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Since then, it has been approved for the treatment of several other autoinflammatory diseases, including Still’s disease and recurrent fever syndromes.

In 2011, an FDA advisory panel voted against the approval of canakinumab to treat acute gout flares refractory to NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids, while in 2013, the European Medicine Agency approved the drug for this treatment indication.

Since that FDA advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s subsequent rejection letter, “[Novartis] has conducted additional studies in patients with gout flares and other related populations to further characterize the short- and long-term safety of canakinumab supporting the current application. To further support the benefit-risk [profile of the drug], the indication is for a more restricted population than initially proposed in 2011,” the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement to this news organization. “Given these considerations and the available safety information, the Agency determined that canakinumab, at the recommended dosage, has a favorable risk-benefit profile” in the specified patient population.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved canakinumab (Ilaris) for the treatment of gout flares in adults who cannot be treated with NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids. The drug is also indicated for people who could not tolerate or had an inadequate response to NSAIDs or colchicine.

The drug, a humanized anti–interleukin-1 beta monoclonal antibody, is the first and only biologic approved in the United States for the treatment of gout flares, according to Novartis. It is administered in a single, subcutaneous injection of 150 mg.

“At Novartis, we are committed to bringing medicines that address high unmet needs to patients. We are proud to receive approval on our eighth indication for Ilaris in the U.S. and provide the first biologic medicine option for people with gout flares to help treat this painful and debilitating condition,” the company said in a statement to this news organization.

Canakinumab was first approved in the United States in 2009 for the treatment of children and adults with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Since then, it has been approved for the treatment of several other autoinflammatory diseases, including Still’s disease and recurrent fever syndromes.

In 2011, an FDA advisory panel voted against the approval of canakinumab to treat acute gout flares refractory to NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids, while in 2013, the European Medicine Agency approved the drug for this treatment indication.

Since that FDA advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s subsequent rejection letter, “[Novartis] has conducted additional studies in patients with gout flares and other related populations to further characterize the short- and long-term safety of canakinumab supporting the current application. To further support the benefit-risk [profile of the drug], the indication is for a more restricted population than initially proposed in 2011,” the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement to this news organization. “Given these considerations and the available safety information, the Agency determined that canakinumab, at the recommended dosage, has a favorable risk-benefit profile” in the specified patient population.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted two new clearances to Welldoc’s BlueStar digital health platform to enable personalized insulin dosing recommendations for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

The latest clearance, announced on Aug. 23, enables the app-based platform to provide bolus insulin dose recommendations that are based on glucose and trend data from a compatible continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device. On Aug. 15, the FDA cleared the BlueStar to use connected insulin dosing data in personalized bolus insulin dosing recommendations.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“Welldoc is the first company to receive clearance for a CGM-informed bolus calculator specifically designed for adults who manage their diabetes with multiple daily injections of insulin,” according to a company statement.

“With this clearance, Welldoc is filling a significant gap for people who require complex insulin regimens. By connecting directly with CGM data and using both glucose values and trend arrows, the BlueStar solution will provide precise and in-the-moment insulin dosing guidance directly to individuals, helping them reach their glucose targets,” endocrinologist Grazia Aleppo, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in the statement.

The new features extend the platform’s existing digital diet and lifestyle coaching capabilities. Previous FDA clearances included expansions to use most types of available insulins, including bolus and premixed insulin titration for patients with type 2 diabetes, in September 2021 and for basal insulin adjustment in June 2020.

Dr. Aleppo was a principal investigator in Welldoc’s clinical validation study for BlueStar.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted two new clearances to Welldoc’s BlueStar digital health platform to enable personalized insulin dosing recommendations for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

The latest clearance, announced on Aug. 23, enables the app-based platform to provide bolus insulin dose recommendations that are based on glucose and trend data from a compatible continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device. On Aug. 15, the FDA cleared the BlueStar to use connected insulin dosing data in personalized bolus insulin dosing recommendations.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“Welldoc is the first company to receive clearance for a CGM-informed bolus calculator specifically designed for adults who manage their diabetes with multiple daily injections of insulin,” according to a company statement.

“With this clearance, Welldoc is filling a significant gap for people who require complex insulin regimens. By connecting directly with CGM data and using both glucose values and trend arrows, the BlueStar solution will provide precise and in-the-moment insulin dosing guidance directly to individuals, helping them reach their glucose targets,” endocrinologist Grazia Aleppo, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in the statement.

The new features extend the platform’s existing digital diet and lifestyle coaching capabilities. Previous FDA clearances included expansions to use most types of available insulins, including bolus and premixed insulin titration for patients with type 2 diabetes, in September 2021 and for basal insulin adjustment in June 2020.

Dr. Aleppo was a principal investigator in Welldoc’s clinical validation study for BlueStar.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted two new clearances to Welldoc’s BlueStar digital health platform to enable personalized insulin dosing recommendations for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

The latest clearance, announced on Aug. 23, enables the app-based platform to provide bolus insulin dose recommendations that are based on glucose and trend data from a compatible continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device. On Aug. 15, the FDA cleared the BlueStar to use connected insulin dosing data in personalized bolus insulin dosing recommendations.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“Welldoc is the first company to receive clearance for a CGM-informed bolus calculator specifically designed for adults who manage their diabetes with multiple daily injections of insulin,” according to a company statement.

“With this clearance, Welldoc is filling a significant gap for people who require complex insulin regimens. By connecting directly with CGM data and using both glucose values and trend arrows, the BlueStar solution will provide precise and in-the-moment insulin dosing guidance directly to individuals, helping them reach their glucose targets,” endocrinologist Grazia Aleppo, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in the statement.

The new features extend the platform’s existing digital diet and lifestyle coaching capabilities. Previous FDA clearances included expansions to use most types of available insulins, including bolus and premixed insulin titration for patients with type 2 diabetes, in September 2021 and for basal insulin adjustment in June 2020.

Dr. Aleppo was a principal investigator in Welldoc’s clinical validation study for BlueStar.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel unanimously agreed that the Symplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System (Medtronic) is safe, but the panel was split on its efficacy and whether the benefits outweighed the risks associated with its use.

The panel voted 13-0, with 0 abstentions, that it is safe, but 7-6, with 0 abstentions, that it is effective. It voted 6-6, with 1 abstention, that the benefits outweigh the risk. The moderator’s tiebreaker vote went against the benefit-risk profile, for a final vote of 6 yes, 7 no, and 1 abstention.

The Symplicity Spyral system provides a catheter-based approach to denervate the renal arteries using radiofrequency energy. The proposed indication is for reduction of blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite their use of antihypertensive medications, or in patients who cannot tolerate antihypertensive medications.

The Spyral device received breakthrough device designation in March 2020. The FDA determined that the device met the criteria for inclusion in the program because it was a novel technology and had the potential to provide more effective treatment for patients with resistant or uncontrolled hypertension.

Medtronic presented data from two studies, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF and SPYRAL HTN-ON randomized trials.

HTN-OFF enrolled patients with hypertension whose medications could be discontinued at the start of the trial. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) from baseline to 3 months post renal denervation or sham procedure. The study showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.9 mm Hg ASBP in patients who received the device compared with sham control patients.

HTN-ON evaluated patients with uncontrolled hypertension who continued taking their blood pressure medications during treatment with either the Spyral renal denervation device or a sham device. The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24 hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months. The study showed a nonsignificant 24-hour 0.03–mm Hg reduction in ambulatory systolic blood pressure in active-treatment patients compared with sham control patients.

Many on the panel agreed that the device was safe and effective. Randall Starling, MD, professor of medicine in the Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute at Cleveland Clinic, said that he was comfortable with the data presented by Medtronic and that his affirmative vote reflected his recognition that hypertension is not effectively treated with current medications and that another tool in the armamentarium to treat patients is needed.

Matthew Corriere, MD, Frankel Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, abstained from voting on whether the benefits of the system outweighed its risks. “I think there is potential benefit, but we don’t know which patients are most likely to have a benefit that outweighs any risks. More selective indications for this product could potentially tip the balance of the benefit outweighing the risks,” he said.

Robert Yeh, MD, director, Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said he believed that the device was safe and effective and that its use resulted in a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients. He pointed to the wide variability in effectiveness across the patient population and suggested that as the device becomes more widely used, experience will show which patients will benefit the most from its use.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research at St. Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo., said the data presented by Medtronic reassured him that the device was safe, but he said he remained unconvinced that the device was effective. “I think that, while this is a safe procedure, the efficacy was mild at best, and that was only at 3 months,” he said.

Other panel members agreed.

“Yes as to safety, but no as to effectiveness,” said Mark Lockhart, MD, professor, department of radiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham. “There is too much uncertainty about there actually being a real benefit to outweigh even a small risk of an invasive procedure,” he said.

One of the statisticians on the panel, Benjamin Saville, PhD, director and senior statistical scientist, Berry Consultants, Austin, Texas, said he did not feel that effectiveness was adequately demonstrated in the trial data presented by Medtronic.

He agreed there is a small but potentially clinically meaningful benefit but voted no because he did not think benefit was demonstrated for those patients in the proposed indication. “For me, I think I would need additional randomized data to convince me that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Julia Lewis, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against endorsing the device for efficacy. “We have one study that is negative and one that is minimally positive,” and there is no reason to think one of those results is more valid than the other, she said.

“So as far as I’m concerned, we still don’t know the efficacy of this, and if it gets on the market, the anecdotal, small sample size of each individual physician using this intervention will not allow them to select out the patients that will benefit from those who won’t benefit, and to not have a definitive study that better defines that it is efficacious and in whom is actually a disservice to the public,” she concluded.

After the panel meeting, Medtronic issued a statement on the result.

“We appreciate the robust conversation that occurred prior to the vote,” Jason Weidman, senior vice-president of the coronary and renal denervation business at Medtronic, said in the statement. “We will continue to collaborate with the FDA on bringing a new option to the millions of people living with high blood pressure.”

The lead investigator of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial, David Kandzari, MD, chief at Piedmont Heart Institute and Cardiovascular Services, added, “The totality of the evidence demonstrated that there is a benefit with the SPYRAL RDN catheter, and there is no question about the safety of the procedure.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel unanimously agreed that the Symplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System (Medtronic) is safe, but the panel was split on its efficacy and whether the benefits outweighed the risks associated with its use.

The panel voted 13-0, with 0 abstentions, that it is safe, but 7-6, with 0 abstentions, that it is effective. It voted 6-6, with 1 abstention, that the benefits outweigh the risk. The moderator’s tiebreaker vote went against the benefit-risk profile, for a final vote of 6 yes, 7 no, and 1 abstention.

The Symplicity Spyral system provides a catheter-based approach to denervate the renal arteries using radiofrequency energy. The proposed indication is for reduction of blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite their use of antihypertensive medications, or in patients who cannot tolerate antihypertensive medications.

The Spyral device received breakthrough device designation in March 2020. The FDA determined that the device met the criteria for inclusion in the program because it was a novel technology and had the potential to provide more effective treatment for patients with resistant or uncontrolled hypertension.

Medtronic presented data from two studies, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF and SPYRAL HTN-ON randomized trials.

HTN-OFF enrolled patients with hypertension whose medications could be discontinued at the start of the trial. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) from baseline to 3 months post renal denervation or sham procedure. The study showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.9 mm Hg ASBP in patients who received the device compared with sham control patients.

HTN-ON evaluated patients with uncontrolled hypertension who continued taking their blood pressure medications during treatment with either the Spyral renal denervation device or a sham device. The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24 hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months. The study showed a nonsignificant 24-hour 0.03–mm Hg reduction in ambulatory systolic blood pressure in active-treatment patients compared with sham control patients.

Many on the panel agreed that the device was safe and effective. Randall Starling, MD, professor of medicine in the Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute at Cleveland Clinic, said that he was comfortable with the data presented by Medtronic and that his affirmative vote reflected his recognition that hypertension is not effectively treated with current medications and that another tool in the armamentarium to treat patients is needed.

Matthew Corriere, MD, Frankel Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, abstained from voting on whether the benefits of the system outweighed its risks. “I think there is potential benefit, but we don’t know which patients are most likely to have a benefit that outweighs any risks. More selective indications for this product could potentially tip the balance of the benefit outweighing the risks,” he said.

Robert Yeh, MD, director, Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said he believed that the device was safe and effective and that its use resulted in a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients. He pointed to the wide variability in effectiveness across the patient population and suggested that as the device becomes more widely used, experience will show which patients will benefit the most from its use.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research at St. Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo., said the data presented by Medtronic reassured him that the device was safe, but he said he remained unconvinced that the device was effective. “I think that, while this is a safe procedure, the efficacy was mild at best, and that was only at 3 months,” he said.

Other panel members agreed.

“Yes as to safety, but no as to effectiveness,” said Mark Lockhart, MD, professor, department of radiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham. “There is too much uncertainty about there actually being a real benefit to outweigh even a small risk of an invasive procedure,” he said.

One of the statisticians on the panel, Benjamin Saville, PhD, director and senior statistical scientist, Berry Consultants, Austin, Texas, said he did not feel that effectiveness was adequately demonstrated in the trial data presented by Medtronic.

He agreed there is a small but potentially clinically meaningful benefit but voted no because he did not think benefit was demonstrated for those patients in the proposed indication. “For me, I think I would need additional randomized data to convince me that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Julia Lewis, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against endorsing the device for efficacy. “We have one study that is negative and one that is minimally positive,” and there is no reason to think one of those results is more valid than the other, she said.

“So as far as I’m concerned, we still don’t know the efficacy of this, and if it gets on the market, the anecdotal, small sample size of each individual physician using this intervention will not allow them to select out the patients that will benefit from those who won’t benefit, and to not have a definitive study that better defines that it is efficacious and in whom is actually a disservice to the public,” she concluded.

After the panel meeting, Medtronic issued a statement on the result.

“We appreciate the robust conversation that occurred prior to the vote,” Jason Weidman, senior vice-president of the coronary and renal denervation business at Medtronic, said in the statement. “We will continue to collaborate with the FDA on bringing a new option to the millions of people living with high blood pressure.”

The lead investigator of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial, David Kandzari, MD, chief at Piedmont Heart Institute and Cardiovascular Services, added, “The totality of the evidence demonstrated that there is a benefit with the SPYRAL RDN catheter, and there is no question about the safety of the procedure.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel unanimously agreed that the Symplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System (Medtronic) is safe, but the panel was split on its efficacy and whether the benefits outweighed the risks associated with its use.

The panel voted 13-0, with 0 abstentions, that it is safe, but 7-6, with 0 abstentions, that it is effective. It voted 6-6, with 1 abstention, that the benefits outweigh the risk. The moderator’s tiebreaker vote went against the benefit-risk profile, for a final vote of 6 yes, 7 no, and 1 abstention.

The Symplicity Spyral system provides a catheter-based approach to denervate the renal arteries using radiofrequency energy. The proposed indication is for reduction of blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite their use of antihypertensive medications, or in patients who cannot tolerate antihypertensive medications.

The Spyral device received breakthrough device designation in March 2020. The FDA determined that the device met the criteria for inclusion in the program because it was a novel technology and had the potential to provide more effective treatment for patients with resistant or uncontrolled hypertension.

Medtronic presented data from two studies, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF and SPYRAL HTN-ON randomized trials.

HTN-OFF enrolled patients with hypertension whose medications could be discontinued at the start of the trial. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) from baseline to 3 months post renal denervation or sham procedure. The study showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.9 mm Hg ASBP in patients who received the device compared with sham control patients.

HTN-ON evaluated patients with uncontrolled hypertension who continued taking their blood pressure medications during treatment with either the Spyral renal denervation device or a sham device. The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24 hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months. The study showed a nonsignificant 24-hour 0.03–mm Hg reduction in ambulatory systolic blood pressure in active-treatment patients compared with sham control patients.

Many on the panel agreed that the device was safe and effective. Randall Starling, MD, professor of medicine in the Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute at Cleveland Clinic, said that he was comfortable with the data presented by Medtronic and that his affirmative vote reflected his recognition that hypertension is not effectively treated with current medications and that another tool in the armamentarium to treat patients is needed.

Matthew Corriere, MD, Frankel Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, abstained from voting on whether the benefits of the system outweighed its risks. “I think there is potential benefit, but we don’t know which patients are most likely to have a benefit that outweighs any risks. More selective indications for this product could potentially tip the balance of the benefit outweighing the risks,” he said.

Robert Yeh, MD, director, Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said he believed that the device was safe and effective and that its use resulted in a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients. He pointed to the wide variability in effectiveness across the patient population and suggested that as the device becomes more widely used, experience will show which patients will benefit the most from its use.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research at St. Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo., said the data presented by Medtronic reassured him that the device was safe, but he said he remained unconvinced that the device was effective. “I think that, while this is a safe procedure, the efficacy was mild at best, and that was only at 3 months,” he said.

Other panel members agreed.

“Yes as to safety, but no as to effectiveness,” said Mark Lockhart, MD, professor, department of radiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham. “There is too much uncertainty about there actually being a real benefit to outweigh even a small risk of an invasive procedure,” he said.

One of the statisticians on the panel, Benjamin Saville, PhD, director and senior statistical scientist, Berry Consultants, Austin, Texas, said he did not feel that effectiveness was adequately demonstrated in the trial data presented by Medtronic.

He agreed there is a small but potentially clinically meaningful benefit but voted no because he did not think benefit was demonstrated for those patients in the proposed indication. “For me, I think I would need additional randomized data to convince me that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Julia Lewis, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against endorsing the device for efficacy. “We have one study that is negative and one that is minimally positive,” and there is no reason to think one of those results is more valid than the other, she said.

“So as far as I’m concerned, we still don’t know the efficacy of this, and if it gets on the market, the anecdotal, small sample size of each individual physician using this intervention will not allow them to select out the patients that will benefit from those who won’t benefit, and to not have a definitive study that better defines that it is efficacious and in whom is actually a disservice to the public,” she concluded.

After the panel meeting, Medtronic issued a statement on the result.

“We appreciate the robust conversation that occurred prior to the vote,” Jason Weidman, senior vice-president of the coronary and renal denervation business at Medtronic, said in the statement. “We will continue to collaborate with the FDA on bringing a new option to the millions of people living with high blood pressure.”

The lead investigator of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial, David Kandzari, MD, chief at Piedmont Heart Institute and Cardiovascular Services, added, “The totality of the evidence demonstrated that there is a benefit with the SPYRAL RDN catheter, and there is no question about the safety of the procedure.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted clearance for Roche’s Accu-Chek Solo micropump system, a tubing-free “patch” pump for people with diabetes who use insulin.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The product received CE Mark in Europe in 2018 and is now available in 19 markets worldwide. It offers users a choice of bolusing directly from the pump or from a handheld remote-control device. The pump can be detached and reattached without wasting insulin.

The remote-control device also incorporates blood glucose monitoring and bolus advice, although it currently does not integrate with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices.

A Roche spokesperson said in an interview, “For future product generations, we are exploring possibilities to integrate CGM data into the system. Already today, the diabetes manager allows users to manually enter a glucose value that can be used to calculate a bolus. To do so, people with diabetes could use their CGM device of choice in conjunction with the Accu-Chek Solo micropump system.”

Roche will provide an update on next steps for further developments and time lines for launch “in due course,” according to a company statement.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted clearance for Roche’s Accu-Chek Solo micropump system, a tubing-free “patch” pump for people with diabetes who use insulin.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The product received CE Mark in Europe in 2018 and is now available in 19 markets worldwide. It offers users a choice of bolusing directly from the pump or from a handheld remote-control device. The pump can be detached and reattached without wasting insulin.

The remote-control device also incorporates blood glucose monitoring and bolus advice, although it currently does not integrate with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices.

A Roche spokesperson said in an interview, “For future product generations, we are exploring possibilities to integrate CGM data into the system. Already today, the diabetes manager allows users to manually enter a glucose value that can be used to calculate a bolus. To do so, people with diabetes could use their CGM device of choice in conjunction with the Accu-Chek Solo micropump system.”

Roche will provide an update on next steps for further developments and time lines for launch “in due course,” according to a company statement.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted clearance for Roche’s Accu-Chek Solo micropump system, a tubing-free “patch” pump for people with diabetes who use insulin.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The product received CE Mark in Europe in 2018 and is now available in 19 markets worldwide. It offers users a choice of bolusing directly from the pump or from a handheld remote-control device. The pump can be detached and reattached without wasting insulin.

The remote-control device also incorporates blood glucose monitoring and bolus advice, although it currently does not integrate with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices.

A Roche spokesperson said in an interview, “For future product generations, we are exploring possibilities to integrate CGM data into the system. Already today, the diabetes manager allows users to manually enter a glucose value that can be used to calculate a bolus. To do so, people with diabetes could use their CGM device of choice in conjunction with the Accu-Chek Solo micropump system.”

Roche will provide an update on next steps for further developments and time lines for launch “in due course,” according to a company statement.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five women in the United States undergoing maternity care experiences mistreatment from health care providers, based on survey data from more than 2,000 individuals.

“We have to do better at providing respectful and unbiased care to all mothers,” Debra E. Houry, MD, chief medical officer of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a press briefing announcing the findings, which were published as a Vital Signs report in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Previous research showed an increase in maternal deaths in the United States from 17.4 to 32.9 per 100,000 live births between 2018 and 2021, but approximately 80% of these deaths are preventable, wrote Yousra A. Mohamoud, PhD, of the CDC’s division of reproductive health, and colleagues.

Dr. Mohamoud

“Maternal mortality review committees have identified discrimination as one factor contributing to pregnancy-related deaths,” the researchers wrote. Respectful care must be part of a larger strategy to prevent these deaths, they emphasized.

In the report, researchers reviewed data from 2,402 women who responded to an opt-in survey. The survey was conducted for the CDC through Porter Novelli, and no personally identifying information was included. Nearly 70% of the participants were White, 10.7% were Black, 10.2% were Hispanic, 4.8% were Asian, 1.5% were American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, or Native Hawaiian, 2.8% were multiracial, and 0.5% were another race.

The survey included questions about maternity care experiences during pregnancy and delivery of the youngest child. For 65.5% of respondents, their youngest child was 5 years or older at the time of the survey.

Mistreatment during maternity care was defined using seven validated questions, including questions about violations of physical privacy, verbal abuse, and inattention to requests for help. Satisfaction with maternity care was defined as “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied.”

Participants also responded to questions about discrimination during maternity care based on factors such as race, ethnicity, skin color, age, and weight. Finally, participants were asked whether they refrained from asking questions about their health or raising concerns with health care providers.

Overall, 20.4% of respondents reported experiencing one of the defined forms of mistreatment during maternity care. The most common mistreatment reported by the women was being ignored by providers when they requested help (9.7%), followed by being shouted at or scolded (6.7%), having physical privacy violated (5.1%), and being forced to accept unwanted treatment or threatened with withholding of treatment (4.6%).

However, approximately 90% of women overall and 75% of those who reported any mistreatment were very or somewhat satisfied with their maternity care.

When stratified by race, mistreatment was reported most frequently by Black, Hispanic, and multiracial women (30%, 29%, and 27%, respectively).

Overall, 29% of women reported experiencing some type of discrimination; the most frequently reported reasons were age, weight, and income. Black women reported the highest rates of discrimination (40%) followed by multiracial women (39%) and Hispanic women (37%).

With regard to self-advocacy, 45% of women reported holding back from asking questions of health care providers; the most common reasons were thinking their health concerns were normal for pregnancy, being embarrassed, and being concerned that health care providers would consider them difficult.

In addition, more women with no insurance or public insurance at the time of delivery reported mistreatment during their maternity care than did women with private insurance (28%, 26%, and 16%, respectively).

The findings were limited by several factors, including the opt-in nature of the survey, which means that the data are likely not representative of the birthing population in the United States, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, potential recall bias, use of English language only, and use of a combined category for respondents of American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander ethnicity.

However, the results highlight the need for improving respectful care as part of a larger strategy to reduce pregnancy-related deaths, the researchers said. At the system level, quality improvement programs are needed to standardize care and support providers in recognizing and reducing biases and increasing cultural awareness and communication. At the provider level, clinicians at all points in the maternity care process can improve patient experiences by providing equitable and respectful care, and by listening to and addressing patients’ concerns.

In addition, communication campaigns and community engagement can include perspectives of patients, families, and communities to support women and encourage them to ask questions and express concerns, the researchers said.

Improving respectful care can be part of actions to reduce mortality at all levels, the researchers noted. The Hear Her campaign, developed by the CDC Foundation with funding from Merck, provides resources for pregnant and postpartum women and their support networks to help reduce pregnancy-related deaths and complications by encouraging women to share concerns with providers and to recognize urgent maternal warning signs.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

One in five women in the United States undergoing maternity care experiences mistreatment from health care providers, based on survey data from more than 2,000 individuals.

“We have to do better at providing respectful and unbiased care to all mothers,” Debra E. Houry, MD, chief medical officer of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a press briefing announcing the findings, which were published as a Vital Signs report in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Previous research showed an increase in maternal deaths in the United States from 17.4 to 32.9 per 100,000 live births between 2018 and 2021, but approximately 80% of these deaths are preventable, wrote Yousra A. Mohamoud, PhD, of the CDC’s division of reproductive health, and colleagues.

Dr. Mohamoud

“Maternal mortality review committees have identified discrimination as one factor contributing to pregnancy-related deaths,” the researchers wrote. Respectful care must be part of a larger strategy to prevent these deaths, they emphasized.

In the report, researchers reviewed data from 2,402 women who responded to an opt-in survey. The survey was conducted for the CDC through Porter Novelli, and no personally identifying information was included. Nearly 70% of the participants were White, 10.7% were Black, 10.2% were Hispanic, 4.8% were Asian, 1.5% were American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, or Native Hawaiian, 2.8% were multiracial, and 0.5% were another race.

The survey included questions about maternity care experiences during pregnancy and delivery of the youngest child. For 65.5% of respondents, their youngest child was 5 years or older at the time of the survey.

Mistreatment during maternity care was defined using seven validated questions, including questions about violations of physical privacy, verbal abuse, and inattention to requests for help. Satisfaction with maternity care was defined as “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied.”

Participants also responded to questions about discrimination during maternity care based on factors such as race, ethnicity, skin color, age, and weight. Finally, participants were asked whether they refrained from asking questions about their health or raising concerns with health care providers.

Overall, 20.4% of respondents reported experiencing one of the defined forms of mistreatment during maternity care. The most common mistreatment reported by the women was being ignored by providers when they requested help (9.7%), followed by being shouted at or scolded (6.7%), having physical privacy violated (5.1%), and being forced to accept unwanted treatment or threatened with withholding of treatment (4.6%).

However, approximately 90% of women overall and 75% of those who reported any mistreatment were very or somewhat satisfied with their maternity care.

When stratified by race, mistreatment was reported most frequently by Black, Hispanic, and multiracial women (30%, 29%, and 27%, respectively).

Overall, 29% of women reported experiencing some type of discrimination; the most frequently reported reasons were age, weight, and income. Black women reported the highest rates of discrimination (40%) followed by multiracial women (39%) and Hispanic women (37%).

With regard to self-advocacy, 45% of women reported holding back from asking questions of health care providers; the most common reasons were thinking their health concerns were normal for pregnancy, being embarrassed, and being concerned that health care providers would consider them difficult.

In addition, more women with no insurance or public insurance at the time of delivery reported mistreatment during their maternity care than did women with private insurance (28%, 26%, and 16%, respectively).

The findings were limited by several factors, including the opt-in nature of the survey, which means that the data are likely not representative of the birthing population in the United States, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, potential recall bias, use of English language only, and use of a combined category for respondents of American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander ethnicity.

However, the results highlight the need for improving respectful care as part of a larger strategy to reduce pregnancy-related deaths, the researchers said. At the system level, quality improvement programs are needed to standardize care and support providers in recognizing and reducing biases and increasing cultural awareness and communication. At the provider level, clinicians at all points in the maternity care process can improve patient experiences by providing equitable and respectful care, and by listening to and addressing patients’ concerns.

In addition, communication campaigns and community engagement can include perspectives of patients, families, and communities to support women and encourage them to ask questions and express concerns, the researchers said.

Improving respectful care can be part of actions to reduce mortality at all levels, the researchers noted. The Hear Her campaign, developed by the CDC Foundation with funding from Merck, provides resources for pregnant and postpartum women and their support networks to help reduce pregnancy-related deaths and complications by encouraging women to share concerns with providers and to recognize urgent maternal warning signs.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

One in five women in the United States undergoing maternity care experiences mistreatment from health care providers, based on survey data from more than 2,000 individuals.

“We have to do better at providing respectful and unbiased care to all mothers,” Debra E. Houry, MD, chief medical officer of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a press briefing announcing the findings, which were published as a Vital Signs report in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Previous research showed an increase in maternal deaths in the United States from 17.4 to 32.9 per 100,000 live births between 2018 and 2021, but approximately 80% of these deaths are preventable, wrote Yousra A. Mohamoud, PhD, of the CDC’s division of reproductive health, and colleagues.

Dr. Mohamoud

“Maternal mortality review committees have identified discrimination as one factor contributing to pregnancy-related deaths,” the researchers wrote. Respectful care must be part of a larger strategy to prevent these deaths, they emphasized.

In the report, researchers reviewed data from 2,402 women who responded to an opt-in survey. The survey was conducted for the CDC through Porter Novelli, and no personally identifying information was included. Nearly 70% of the participants were White, 10.7% were Black, 10.2% were Hispanic, 4.8% were Asian, 1.5% were American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, or Native Hawaiian, 2.8% were multiracial, and 0.5% were another race.

The survey included questions about maternity care experiences during pregnancy and delivery of the youngest child. For 65.5% of respondents, their youngest child was 5 years or older at the time of the survey.

Mistreatment during maternity care was defined using seven validated questions, including questions about violations of physical privacy, verbal abuse, and inattention to requests for help. Satisfaction with maternity care was defined as “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied.”

Participants also responded to questions about discrimination during maternity care based on factors such as race, ethnicity, skin color, age, and weight. Finally, participants were asked whether they refrained from asking questions about their health or raising concerns with health care providers.

Overall, 20.4% of respondents reported experiencing one of the defined forms of mistreatment during maternity care. The most common mistreatment reported by the women was being ignored by providers when they requested help (9.7%), followed by being shouted at or scolded (6.7%), having physical privacy violated (5.1%), and being forced to accept unwanted treatment or threatened with withholding of treatment (4.6%).

However, approximately 90% of women overall and 75% of those who reported any mistreatment were very or somewhat satisfied with their maternity care.

When stratified by race, mistreatment was reported most frequently by Black, Hispanic, and multiracial women (30%, 29%, and 27%, respectively).

Overall, 29% of women reported experiencing some type of discrimination; the most frequently reported reasons were age, weight, and income. Black women reported the highest rates of discrimination (40%) followed by multiracial women (39%) and Hispanic women (37%).

With regard to self-advocacy, 45% of women reported holding back from asking questions of health care providers; the most common reasons were thinking their health concerns were normal for pregnancy, being embarrassed, and being concerned that health care providers would consider them difficult.

In addition, more women with no insurance or public insurance at the time of delivery reported mistreatment during their maternity care than did women with private insurance (28%, 26%, and 16%, respectively).

The findings were limited by several factors, including the opt-in nature of the survey, which means that the data are likely not representative of the birthing population in the United States, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, potential recall bias, use of English language only, and use of a combined category for respondents of American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander ethnicity.

However, the results highlight the need for improving respectful care as part of a larger strategy to reduce pregnancy-related deaths, the researchers said. At the system level, quality improvement programs are needed to standardize care and support providers in recognizing and reducing biases and increasing cultural awareness and communication. At the provider level, clinicians at all points in the maternity care process can improve patient experiences by providing equitable and respectful care, and by listening to and addressing patients’ concerns.

In addition, communication campaigns and community engagement can include perspectives of patients, families, and communities to support women and encourage them to ask questions and express concerns, the researchers said.

Improving respectful care can be part of actions to reduce mortality at all levels, the researchers noted. The Hear Her campaign, developed by the CDC Foundation with funding from Merck, provides resources for pregnant and postpartum women and their support networks to help reduce pregnancy-related deaths and complications by encouraging women to share concerns with providers and to recognize urgent maternal warning signs.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.