User login
New USPSTF draft suggests mammography start at 40, not 50
The major change: USPSTF proposed reducing the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms from age 50 to age 40. The latest recommendation, which carries a B grade, also calls for screening every other year and sets a cutoff age of 74.
The task force’s A and B ratings indicate strong confidence in the evidence for benefit, meaning that clinicians should encourage their patients to get these services as appropriate.
The influential federal advisory panel last updated these recommendations in 2016. At the time, USPSTF recommended routine screening mammograms starting at age 50, and gave a C grade to starting before that.
In the 2016 recommendations, “we felt a woman could start screening in her 40s depending on how she feels about the harms and benefits in an individualized personal decision,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “In this draft recommendation, we now recommend that all women get screened starting at age 40.”
Two major factors prompted the change, explained Dr. Wong. One is that more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s. The other is that a growing body of evidence showing that Black women get breast cancer younger, are more likely to die of breast cancer, and would benefit from earlier screening.
“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Dr. Wong said.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) called the draft recommendations a “significant positive change,” while noting that the task force recommendations only apply to women at average risk for breast cancer.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) already recommends yearly mammograms for average risk women starting at age 40. Its latest guidelines on mammography call for women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer to undergo a risk assessment by age 25 to determine if screening before age 40 is needed.
When asked about the differing views, Debra Monticciolo, MD, division chief for breast imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, said annual screenings that follow ACR recommendations would save more lives than the every-other-year approach backed by the task force. Dr. Monticciolo also highlighted that the available scientific evidence supports earlier assessment as well as augmented and earlier-than-age-40 screening of many women – particularly Black women.
“These evidence-based updates should spur more-informed doctor–patient conversations and help providers save more lives,” Dr. Monticciolo said in a press release.
Insurance access
Typically, upgrading a USPSTF recommendation from C to B leads to better access and insurance coverage for patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 requires insurers to cover the cost of services that get A and B recommendations from the USPSTF without charging copays – a mandate intended to promote greater use for highly regarded services.
But Congress created a special workaround that effectively makes the ACA mandate apply to the 2002 task force recommendations on mammography. In those recommendations, the task force gave a B grade to screening mammograms every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 without an age limit.
Federal lawmakers have sought to provide copay-free access to mammograms for this entire population even when the USPSTF recommendations in 2009 and 2016 gave a C grade to routine screening for women under 50.
Still, “it is important to note that our recommendation is based solely on the science of what works to prevent breast cancer and it is not a recommendation for or against insurance coverage,” the task force acknowledged when unveiling the new draft update. “Coverage decisions involve considerations beyond the evidence about clinical benefit, and in the end, these decisions are the responsibility of payors, regulators, and legislators.”
Uncertainties persist
The new draft recommendations also highlight the persistent gaps in knowledge about the uses of mammography, despite years of widespread use of this screening tool.
The updated draft recommendations emphasize the lack of sufficient evidence to address major areas of concern related to screening and treating Black women, older women, women with dense breasts, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
The task force called for more research addressing the underlying causes of elevated breast cancer mortality rates among Black women.
The USPSTF also issued an ‘I’ statement for providing women with dense breasts additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI and for screening women older than 75 for breast cancer. Such statements indicate that the available evidence is lacking, poor quality, or conflicting, and thus the USPSTF can’t assess the benefits and harms or make a recommendation for or against providing the preventive service.
“Nearly half of all women have dense breasts, which increases their risk for breast cancer and means that mammograms may not work as well for them. We need to know more about whether and how additional screening might help women with dense breasts stay healthy,” the task force explained.
The task force also called for more research on approaches to reduce the risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for breast lesions, such as DCIS, which are identified through screening.
One analysis – the COMET study – is currently underway to assess whether women could be spared surgery for DCIS and opt for watchful waiting instead.
“If we can find that monitoring them carefully, either with or without some sort of endocrine therapy, is just as effective in keeping patients free of invasive cancer as surgery, then I think we could help to de-escalate treatment for this very low-risk group of patients,” Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the COMET study, told this news organization in December.
The task force will accept comments from the public on this draft update through June 5.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The major change: USPSTF proposed reducing the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms from age 50 to age 40. The latest recommendation, which carries a B grade, also calls for screening every other year and sets a cutoff age of 74.
The task force’s A and B ratings indicate strong confidence in the evidence for benefit, meaning that clinicians should encourage their patients to get these services as appropriate.
The influential federal advisory panel last updated these recommendations in 2016. At the time, USPSTF recommended routine screening mammograms starting at age 50, and gave a C grade to starting before that.
In the 2016 recommendations, “we felt a woman could start screening in her 40s depending on how she feels about the harms and benefits in an individualized personal decision,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “In this draft recommendation, we now recommend that all women get screened starting at age 40.”
Two major factors prompted the change, explained Dr. Wong. One is that more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s. The other is that a growing body of evidence showing that Black women get breast cancer younger, are more likely to die of breast cancer, and would benefit from earlier screening.
“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Dr. Wong said.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) called the draft recommendations a “significant positive change,” while noting that the task force recommendations only apply to women at average risk for breast cancer.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) already recommends yearly mammograms for average risk women starting at age 40. Its latest guidelines on mammography call for women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer to undergo a risk assessment by age 25 to determine if screening before age 40 is needed.
When asked about the differing views, Debra Monticciolo, MD, division chief for breast imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, said annual screenings that follow ACR recommendations would save more lives than the every-other-year approach backed by the task force. Dr. Monticciolo also highlighted that the available scientific evidence supports earlier assessment as well as augmented and earlier-than-age-40 screening of many women – particularly Black women.
“These evidence-based updates should spur more-informed doctor–patient conversations and help providers save more lives,” Dr. Monticciolo said in a press release.
Insurance access
Typically, upgrading a USPSTF recommendation from C to B leads to better access and insurance coverage for patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 requires insurers to cover the cost of services that get A and B recommendations from the USPSTF without charging copays – a mandate intended to promote greater use for highly regarded services.
But Congress created a special workaround that effectively makes the ACA mandate apply to the 2002 task force recommendations on mammography. In those recommendations, the task force gave a B grade to screening mammograms every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 without an age limit.
Federal lawmakers have sought to provide copay-free access to mammograms for this entire population even when the USPSTF recommendations in 2009 and 2016 gave a C grade to routine screening for women under 50.
Still, “it is important to note that our recommendation is based solely on the science of what works to prevent breast cancer and it is not a recommendation for or against insurance coverage,” the task force acknowledged when unveiling the new draft update. “Coverage decisions involve considerations beyond the evidence about clinical benefit, and in the end, these decisions are the responsibility of payors, regulators, and legislators.”
Uncertainties persist
The new draft recommendations also highlight the persistent gaps in knowledge about the uses of mammography, despite years of widespread use of this screening tool.
The updated draft recommendations emphasize the lack of sufficient evidence to address major areas of concern related to screening and treating Black women, older women, women with dense breasts, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
The task force called for more research addressing the underlying causes of elevated breast cancer mortality rates among Black women.
The USPSTF also issued an ‘I’ statement for providing women with dense breasts additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI and for screening women older than 75 for breast cancer. Such statements indicate that the available evidence is lacking, poor quality, or conflicting, and thus the USPSTF can’t assess the benefits and harms or make a recommendation for or against providing the preventive service.
“Nearly half of all women have dense breasts, which increases their risk for breast cancer and means that mammograms may not work as well for them. We need to know more about whether and how additional screening might help women with dense breasts stay healthy,” the task force explained.
The task force also called for more research on approaches to reduce the risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for breast lesions, such as DCIS, which are identified through screening.
One analysis – the COMET study – is currently underway to assess whether women could be spared surgery for DCIS and opt for watchful waiting instead.
“If we can find that monitoring them carefully, either with or without some sort of endocrine therapy, is just as effective in keeping patients free of invasive cancer as surgery, then I think we could help to de-escalate treatment for this very low-risk group of patients,” Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the COMET study, told this news organization in December.
The task force will accept comments from the public on this draft update through June 5.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The major change: USPSTF proposed reducing the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms from age 50 to age 40. The latest recommendation, which carries a B grade, also calls for screening every other year and sets a cutoff age of 74.
The task force’s A and B ratings indicate strong confidence in the evidence for benefit, meaning that clinicians should encourage their patients to get these services as appropriate.
The influential federal advisory panel last updated these recommendations in 2016. At the time, USPSTF recommended routine screening mammograms starting at age 50, and gave a C grade to starting before that.
In the 2016 recommendations, “we felt a woman could start screening in her 40s depending on how she feels about the harms and benefits in an individualized personal decision,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “In this draft recommendation, we now recommend that all women get screened starting at age 40.”
Two major factors prompted the change, explained Dr. Wong. One is that more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s. The other is that a growing body of evidence showing that Black women get breast cancer younger, are more likely to die of breast cancer, and would benefit from earlier screening.
“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Dr. Wong said.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) called the draft recommendations a “significant positive change,” while noting that the task force recommendations only apply to women at average risk for breast cancer.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) already recommends yearly mammograms for average risk women starting at age 40. Its latest guidelines on mammography call for women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer to undergo a risk assessment by age 25 to determine if screening before age 40 is needed.
When asked about the differing views, Debra Monticciolo, MD, division chief for breast imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, said annual screenings that follow ACR recommendations would save more lives than the every-other-year approach backed by the task force. Dr. Monticciolo also highlighted that the available scientific evidence supports earlier assessment as well as augmented and earlier-than-age-40 screening of many women – particularly Black women.
“These evidence-based updates should spur more-informed doctor–patient conversations and help providers save more lives,” Dr. Monticciolo said in a press release.
Insurance access
Typically, upgrading a USPSTF recommendation from C to B leads to better access and insurance coverage for patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 requires insurers to cover the cost of services that get A and B recommendations from the USPSTF without charging copays – a mandate intended to promote greater use for highly regarded services.
But Congress created a special workaround that effectively makes the ACA mandate apply to the 2002 task force recommendations on mammography. In those recommendations, the task force gave a B grade to screening mammograms every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 without an age limit.
Federal lawmakers have sought to provide copay-free access to mammograms for this entire population even when the USPSTF recommendations in 2009 and 2016 gave a C grade to routine screening for women under 50.
Still, “it is important to note that our recommendation is based solely on the science of what works to prevent breast cancer and it is not a recommendation for or against insurance coverage,” the task force acknowledged when unveiling the new draft update. “Coverage decisions involve considerations beyond the evidence about clinical benefit, and in the end, these decisions are the responsibility of payors, regulators, and legislators.”
Uncertainties persist
The new draft recommendations also highlight the persistent gaps in knowledge about the uses of mammography, despite years of widespread use of this screening tool.
The updated draft recommendations emphasize the lack of sufficient evidence to address major areas of concern related to screening and treating Black women, older women, women with dense breasts, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
The task force called for more research addressing the underlying causes of elevated breast cancer mortality rates among Black women.
The USPSTF also issued an ‘I’ statement for providing women with dense breasts additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI and for screening women older than 75 for breast cancer. Such statements indicate that the available evidence is lacking, poor quality, or conflicting, and thus the USPSTF can’t assess the benefits and harms or make a recommendation for or against providing the preventive service.
“Nearly half of all women have dense breasts, which increases their risk for breast cancer and means that mammograms may not work as well for them. We need to know more about whether and how additional screening might help women with dense breasts stay healthy,” the task force explained.
The task force also called for more research on approaches to reduce the risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for breast lesions, such as DCIS, which are identified through screening.
One analysis – the COMET study – is currently underway to assess whether women could be spared surgery for DCIS and opt for watchful waiting instead.
“If we can find that monitoring them carefully, either with or without some sort of endocrine therapy, is just as effective in keeping patients free of invasive cancer as surgery, then I think we could help to de-escalate treatment for this very low-risk group of patients,” Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the COMET study, told this news organization in December.
The task force will accept comments from the public on this draft update through June 5.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA expands use of dapagliflozin to broader range of HF
– including HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was previously approved in the United States for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
The expanded indication is based on data from the phase 3 DELIVER trial, which showed clear clinical benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with HF regardless of left ventricular function.
In the trial, which included more than 6,200 patients, dapagliflozin led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful early reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening HF for patients with HFmrEF or HFpEFF.
In addition, results of a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER phase 3 trials showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment in significantly reducing the combined endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization across the range of LVEF.
The European Commission expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Forxiga) to include HF across the full spectrum of LVEF in February.
The SGLT2 inhibitor is also approved for use by patients with chronic kidney disease. It was first approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
– including HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was previously approved in the United States for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
The expanded indication is based on data from the phase 3 DELIVER trial, which showed clear clinical benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with HF regardless of left ventricular function.
In the trial, which included more than 6,200 patients, dapagliflozin led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful early reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening HF for patients with HFmrEF or HFpEFF.
In addition, results of a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER phase 3 trials showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment in significantly reducing the combined endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization across the range of LVEF.
The European Commission expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Forxiga) to include HF across the full spectrum of LVEF in February.
The SGLT2 inhibitor is also approved for use by patients with chronic kidney disease. It was first approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
– including HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was previously approved in the United States for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
The expanded indication is based on data from the phase 3 DELIVER trial, which showed clear clinical benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with HF regardless of left ventricular function.
In the trial, which included more than 6,200 patients, dapagliflozin led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful early reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening HF for patients with HFmrEF or HFpEFF.
In addition, results of a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER phase 3 trials showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment in significantly reducing the combined endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization across the range of LVEF.
The European Commission expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Forxiga) to include HF across the full spectrum of LVEF in February.
The SGLT2 inhibitor is also approved for use by patients with chronic kidney disease. It was first approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New drugs in primary care: Lessons learned from COVID-19
SAN DIEGO – – plus it has helped keep many patients out of the hospital, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA late in 2021 to prevent progression to severe disease when COVID-19 cases and deaths were surging, and the Delta and Omicron variants started to spread.
Gerald Smetana, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, discussed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as an example of how new drugs relevant to primary care can have a profound impact on public health.
Understanding the mechanism of action
Nirmatrelvir is the active agent of this combination and inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), which is required for viral replication. In contrast to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, Mpro is highly conserved in coronaviruses and rarely acquires mutations. Therefore, unlike monoclonal antibodies targeting the spike protein, nirmatrelvir is active against known Omicron variants and is predicted to remain active against new variants that may emerge. The HIV1 protease inhibitor ritonavir has no activity against SARS-CoV-2. It can help increase the serum concentration of nirmatrelvir by inhibiting its metabolization.
“Although the details are not important for prescribing internists, having a basic understanding of the mechanism of action can help [doctors] better understand for which patients the drugs are indicated,” said Dr. Smetana, also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. This is particularly important for newly approved drugs with a lot of new information to digest.
“Knowing the mechanisms of action of new drugs can help us predict their efficacy and potential side effects,” said Hubertus Kiefl, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School, during an interview after the session.
Understanding how drugs work also can help clinicians make better decisions, such as avoiding the use of a monoclonal antibody during a surge of a new variant with mutations in surface proteins or carefully managing the use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in patients who take certain medications that would cause potentially serious drug-drug interactions, Dr. Kiefl added.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduces the risk of hospitalization – but only in high-risk patients.
Dr. Smetana presented published data from the EPIC-HR study, a pivotal phase 2-3 clinical trial in 2,246 adult patients with COVID-19, all of whom were unvaccinated. Additionally, all patients had at least one risk factor for progression to severe disease.
When initiated 5 days after symptom onset or earlier, treatment with 300 mg nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg ritonavir twice a day for 5 days led to an 89% relative risk reduction in COVID-19–related hospitalization or death through day 28, compared with placebo.
Subgroup analyses showed that some patients benefited more than others. The highest risk reduction after treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was observed in patients at least 65 years old.
“It is important to remember that all the patients of this study were unvaccinated and [had] not had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study population isn’t representative of most patients we are seeing today,” said Dr. Smetana.
Unpublished data from a study of standard-risk patients showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death, he said. The study was stopped because of the low rates of hospitalization and death.
Effective in real world, but less so than in clinical trials
The fact that the patient cohort in the EPIC-HR trial was different from the patients internists see today makes real-world data critical for determining the usefulness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in everyday practice, Dr. Smetana said.
A real-world study from Israel conducted during the first Omicron wave (January to March 2022) showed that treatment with nirmatrelvir alone substantially reduced the relative risk of hospitalization in adults older than 65, with no evidence of benefit in adults aged 40-65. Dr. Smetana highlighted that, unlike the EPIC-HR cohort, most patients in the Israeli study had prior immunity due to vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Many drug-drug interactions, but they can be managed
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir interacts with many drugs, some of which are commonly used by primary care patients.
To help internists identify drug-drug interactions, Dr. Smetana proposed the use of the Liverpool COVID-19 Drug Interactions Checker, an intuitive tool that can help prescribers identify potential drug-drug interactions, categorize them based on severity, and identify management strategies.
This tool is specific to COVID-19 drugs. The Liverpool group also offers online drug interaction checkers for HIV, hepatitis, and cancer. “We need more tools like this to help improve the safe use of new drugs,” Dr. Smetana said.
To manage drug interactions, according to Dr. Smetana, U.S. treatment guidelines offer the following three options:
- Prescribe an alternative COVID therapy.
- Temporarily withhold concomitant medication if clinically appropriate.
- Adjust the dose of concomitant medication and monitor for adverse effects.
Medication doses that are withheld or modified should be continued through 3 days after completing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, he added.
Important considerations
Commenting on things to consider for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Smetana said that there is a short window after symptom onset when nirmatrelvir-ritonavir can be prescribed, and safety in pregnancy is not known. There is also uncertainty regarding funding of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions after the state of emergency is lifted. He reminded attendees that, although nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is the preferred first-line treatment for high-risk patients, another antiviral agent, molnupiravir, is also available and might be more appropriate for some patients.
He also cautioned about prescribing new drugs off label for indications that are not yet FDA-approved. “We are often stewards of limited resources when new drugs first become available but are not yet in sufficient supply to meet demand. Limiting our prescribing to FDA-approved indications helps to ensure equitable access,” he said.
Dr. Smetana and Dr. Kiefl reported no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – – plus it has helped keep many patients out of the hospital, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA late in 2021 to prevent progression to severe disease when COVID-19 cases and deaths were surging, and the Delta and Omicron variants started to spread.
Gerald Smetana, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, discussed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as an example of how new drugs relevant to primary care can have a profound impact on public health.
Understanding the mechanism of action
Nirmatrelvir is the active agent of this combination and inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), which is required for viral replication. In contrast to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, Mpro is highly conserved in coronaviruses and rarely acquires mutations. Therefore, unlike monoclonal antibodies targeting the spike protein, nirmatrelvir is active against known Omicron variants and is predicted to remain active against new variants that may emerge. The HIV1 protease inhibitor ritonavir has no activity against SARS-CoV-2. It can help increase the serum concentration of nirmatrelvir by inhibiting its metabolization.
“Although the details are not important for prescribing internists, having a basic understanding of the mechanism of action can help [doctors] better understand for which patients the drugs are indicated,” said Dr. Smetana, also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. This is particularly important for newly approved drugs with a lot of new information to digest.
“Knowing the mechanisms of action of new drugs can help us predict their efficacy and potential side effects,” said Hubertus Kiefl, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School, during an interview after the session.
Understanding how drugs work also can help clinicians make better decisions, such as avoiding the use of a monoclonal antibody during a surge of a new variant with mutations in surface proteins or carefully managing the use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in patients who take certain medications that would cause potentially serious drug-drug interactions, Dr. Kiefl added.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduces the risk of hospitalization – but only in high-risk patients.
Dr. Smetana presented published data from the EPIC-HR study, a pivotal phase 2-3 clinical trial in 2,246 adult patients with COVID-19, all of whom were unvaccinated. Additionally, all patients had at least one risk factor for progression to severe disease.
When initiated 5 days after symptom onset or earlier, treatment with 300 mg nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg ritonavir twice a day for 5 days led to an 89% relative risk reduction in COVID-19–related hospitalization or death through day 28, compared with placebo.
Subgroup analyses showed that some patients benefited more than others. The highest risk reduction after treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was observed in patients at least 65 years old.
“It is important to remember that all the patients of this study were unvaccinated and [had] not had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study population isn’t representative of most patients we are seeing today,” said Dr. Smetana.
Unpublished data from a study of standard-risk patients showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death, he said. The study was stopped because of the low rates of hospitalization and death.
Effective in real world, but less so than in clinical trials
The fact that the patient cohort in the EPIC-HR trial was different from the patients internists see today makes real-world data critical for determining the usefulness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in everyday practice, Dr. Smetana said.
A real-world study from Israel conducted during the first Omicron wave (January to March 2022) showed that treatment with nirmatrelvir alone substantially reduced the relative risk of hospitalization in adults older than 65, with no evidence of benefit in adults aged 40-65. Dr. Smetana highlighted that, unlike the EPIC-HR cohort, most patients in the Israeli study had prior immunity due to vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Many drug-drug interactions, but they can be managed
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir interacts with many drugs, some of which are commonly used by primary care patients.
To help internists identify drug-drug interactions, Dr. Smetana proposed the use of the Liverpool COVID-19 Drug Interactions Checker, an intuitive tool that can help prescribers identify potential drug-drug interactions, categorize them based on severity, and identify management strategies.
This tool is specific to COVID-19 drugs. The Liverpool group also offers online drug interaction checkers for HIV, hepatitis, and cancer. “We need more tools like this to help improve the safe use of new drugs,” Dr. Smetana said.
To manage drug interactions, according to Dr. Smetana, U.S. treatment guidelines offer the following three options:
- Prescribe an alternative COVID therapy.
- Temporarily withhold concomitant medication if clinically appropriate.
- Adjust the dose of concomitant medication and monitor for adverse effects.
Medication doses that are withheld or modified should be continued through 3 days after completing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, he added.
Important considerations
Commenting on things to consider for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Smetana said that there is a short window after symptom onset when nirmatrelvir-ritonavir can be prescribed, and safety in pregnancy is not known. There is also uncertainty regarding funding of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions after the state of emergency is lifted. He reminded attendees that, although nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is the preferred first-line treatment for high-risk patients, another antiviral agent, molnupiravir, is also available and might be more appropriate for some patients.
He also cautioned about prescribing new drugs off label for indications that are not yet FDA-approved. “We are often stewards of limited resources when new drugs first become available but are not yet in sufficient supply to meet demand. Limiting our prescribing to FDA-approved indications helps to ensure equitable access,” he said.
Dr. Smetana and Dr. Kiefl reported no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – – plus it has helped keep many patients out of the hospital, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA late in 2021 to prevent progression to severe disease when COVID-19 cases and deaths were surging, and the Delta and Omicron variants started to spread.
Gerald Smetana, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, discussed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as an example of how new drugs relevant to primary care can have a profound impact on public health.
Understanding the mechanism of action
Nirmatrelvir is the active agent of this combination and inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), which is required for viral replication. In contrast to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, Mpro is highly conserved in coronaviruses and rarely acquires mutations. Therefore, unlike monoclonal antibodies targeting the spike protein, nirmatrelvir is active against known Omicron variants and is predicted to remain active against new variants that may emerge. The HIV1 protease inhibitor ritonavir has no activity against SARS-CoV-2. It can help increase the serum concentration of nirmatrelvir by inhibiting its metabolization.
“Although the details are not important for prescribing internists, having a basic understanding of the mechanism of action can help [doctors] better understand for which patients the drugs are indicated,” said Dr. Smetana, also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. This is particularly important for newly approved drugs with a lot of new information to digest.
“Knowing the mechanisms of action of new drugs can help us predict their efficacy and potential side effects,” said Hubertus Kiefl, MD, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School, during an interview after the session.
Understanding how drugs work also can help clinicians make better decisions, such as avoiding the use of a monoclonal antibody during a surge of a new variant with mutations in surface proteins or carefully managing the use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in patients who take certain medications that would cause potentially serious drug-drug interactions, Dr. Kiefl added.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduces the risk of hospitalization – but only in high-risk patients.
Dr. Smetana presented published data from the EPIC-HR study, a pivotal phase 2-3 clinical trial in 2,246 adult patients with COVID-19, all of whom were unvaccinated. Additionally, all patients had at least one risk factor for progression to severe disease.
When initiated 5 days after symptom onset or earlier, treatment with 300 mg nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg ritonavir twice a day for 5 days led to an 89% relative risk reduction in COVID-19–related hospitalization or death through day 28, compared with placebo.
Subgroup analyses showed that some patients benefited more than others. The highest risk reduction after treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was observed in patients at least 65 years old.
“It is important to remember that all the patients of this study were unvaccinated and [had] not had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study population isn’t representative of most patients we are seeing today,” said Dr. Smetana.
Unpublished data from a study of standard-risk patients showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death, he said. The study was stopped because of the low rates of hospitalization and death.
Effective in real world, but less so than in clinical trials
The fact that the patient cohort in the EPIC-HR trial was different from the patients internists see today makes real-world data critical for determining the usefulness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in everyday practice, Dr. Smetana said.
A real-world study from Israel conducted during the first Omicron wave (January to March 2022) showed that treatment with nirmatrelvir alone substantially reduced the relative risk of hospitalization in adults older than 65, with no evidence of benefit in adults aged 40-65. Dr. Smetana highlighted that, unlike the EPIC-HR cohort, most patients in the Israeli study had prior immunity due to vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Many drug-drug interactions, but they can be managed
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir interacts with many drugs, some of which are commonly used by primary care patients.
To help internists identify drug-drug interactions, Dr. Smetana proposed the use of the Liverpool COVID-19 Drug Interactions Checker, an intuitive tool that can help prescribers identify potential drug-drug interactions, categorize them based on severity, and identify management strategies.
This tool is specific to COVID-19 drugs. The Liverpool group also offers online drug interaction checkers for HIV, hepatitis, and cancer. “We need more tools like this to help improve the safe use of new drugs,” Dr. Smetana said.
To manage drug interactions, according to Dr. Smetana, U.S. treatment guidelines offer the following three options:
- Prescribe an alternative COVID therapy.
- Temporarily withhold concomitant medication if clinically appropriate.
- Adjust the dose of concomitant medication and monitor for adverse effects.
Medication doses that are withheld or modified should be continued through 3 days after completing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, he added.
Important considerations
Commenting on things to consider for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Smetana said that there is a short window after symptom onset when nirmatrelvir-ritonavir can be prescribed, and safety in pregnancy is not known. There is also uncertainty regarding funding of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir prescriptions after the state of emergency is lifted. He reminded attendees that, although nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is the preferred first-line treatment for high-risk patients, another antiviral agent, molnupiravir, is also available and might be more appropriate for some patients.
He also cautioned about prescribing new drugs off label for indications that are not yet FDA-approved. “We are often stewards of limited resources when new drugs first become available but are not yet in sufficient supply to meet demand. Limiting our prescribing to FDA-approved indications helps to ensure equitable access,” he said.
Dr. Smetana and Dr. Kiefl reported no disclosures.
AT INTERNAL MEDICINE 2023
FDA fast tracks potential CAR T-cell therapy for lupus
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Fast Track designation for Cabaletta Bio’s cell therapy CABA-201 for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), the company announced May 1.
The FDA cleared Cabaletta to begin a phase 1/2 clinical trial of CABA-201, the statement says, which will be the first trial accessing Cabaletta’s Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells for Autoimmunity (CARTA) approach. CABA-201, a 4-1BB–containing fully human CD19-CAR T-cell investigational therapy, is designed to target and deplete CD19-positive B cells, “enabling an ‘immune system reset’ with durable remission in patients with SLE,” according to the press release. This news organization previously reported on a small study in Germany, published in Nature Medicine, that also used anti-CD19 CAR T cells to treat five patients with SLE.
This upcoming open-label study will enroll two cohorts containing six patients each. One cohort will be patients with SLE and active LN, and the other will be patients with SLE without renal involvement. The therapy is designed as a one-time infusion and will be administered at a dose of 1.0 x 106 cells/kg.
“We believe the FDA’s decision to grant Fast Track Designation for CABA-201 underscores the unmet need for a treatment that has the potential to provide deep and durable responses for people living with lupus and potentially other autoimmune diseases where B cells contribute to disease,” David J. Chang, MD, chief medical officer of Cabaletta, said in the press release.
FDA Fast Track is a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs and other therapeutics that treat serious conditions and address unmet medical needs. Companies that receive Fast Track designation for a drug have the opportunity for more frequent meetings and written communication with the FDA about the drug’s development plan and design of clinical trials. The fast-tracked drug can also be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review if relevant criteria are met.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Fast Track designation for Cabaletta Bio’s cell therapy CABA-201 for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), the company announced May 1.
The FDA cleared Cabaletta to begin a phase 1/2 clinical trial of CABA-201, the statement says, which will be the first trial accessing Cabaletta’s Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells for Autoimmunity (CARTA) approach. CABA-201, a 4-1BB–containing fully human CD19-CAR T-cell investigational therapy, is designed to target and deplete CD19-positive B cells, “enabling an ‘immune system reset’ with durable remission in patients with SLE,” according to the press release. This news organization previously reported on a small study in Germany, published in Nature Medicine, that also used anti-CD19 CAR T cells to treat five patients with SLE.
This upcoming open-label study will enroll two cohorts containing six patients each. One cohort will be patients with SLE and active LN, and the other will be patients with SLE without renal involvement. The therapy is designed as a one-time infusion and will be administered at a dose of 1.0 x 106 cells/kg.
“We believe the FDA’s decision to grant Fast Track Designation for CABA-201 underscores the unmet need for a treatment that has the potential to provide deep and durable responses for people living with lupus and potentially other autoimmune diseases where B cells contribute to disease,” David J. Chang, MD, chief medical officer of Cabaletta, said in the press release.
FDA Fast Track is a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs and other therapeutics that treat serious conditions and address unmet medical needs. Companies that receive Fast Track designation for a drug have the opportunity for more frequent meetings and written communication with the FDA about the drug’s development plan and design of clinical trials. The fast-tracked drug can also be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review if relevant criteria are met.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Fast Track designation for Cabaletta Bio’s cell therapy CABA-201 for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), the company announced May 1.
The FDA cleared Cabaletta to begin a phase 1/2 clinical trial of CABA-201, the statement says, which will be the first trial accessing Cabaletta’s Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells for Autoimmunity (CARTA) approach. CABA-201, a 4-1BB–containing fully human CD19-CAR T-cell investigational therapy, is designed to target and deplete CD19-positive B cells, “enabling an ‘immune system reset’ with durable remission in patients with SLE,” according to the press release. This news organization previously reported on a small study in Germany, published in Nature Medicine, that also used anti-CD19 CAR T cells to treat five patients with SLE.
This upcoming open-label study will enroll two cohorts containing six patients each. One cohort will be patients with SLE and active LN, and the other will be patients with SLE without renal involvement. The therapy is designed as a one-time infusion and will be administered at a dose of 1.0 x 106 cells/kg.
“We believe the FDA’s decision to grant Fast Track Designation for CABA-201 underscores the unmet need for a treatment that has the potential to provide deep and durable responses for people living with lupus and potentially other autoimmune diseases where B cells contribute to disease,” David J. Chang, MD, chief medical officer of Cabaletta, said in the press release.
FDA Fast Track is a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs and other therapeutics that treat serious conditions and address unmet medical needs. Companies that receive Fast Track designation for a drug have the opportunity for more frequent meetings and written communication with the FDA about the drug’s development plan and design of clinical trials. The fast-tracked drug can also be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review if relevant criteria are met.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves first RSV vaccine for older adults
Arexvy, manufactured by GSK, is the world’s first RSV vaccine for adults aged 60 years and older, the company said in an announcement.
Every year, RSV is responsible for 60,000–120,000 hospitalizations and 6,000–10,000 deaths among U.S. adults older than age, according to the FDA. Older adults with underlying health conditions — such as diabetes, a weakened immune system, or lung or heart disease — are at high risk for severe disease. "Today’s approval of the first RSV vaccine is an important public health achievement to prevent a disease which can be life-threatening and reflects the FDA’s continued commitment to facilitating the development of safe and effective vaccines for use in the United States," said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement.
The FDA approval of Arexvy was based on a clinical study of approximately 25,000 patients. Half of these patients received Arexvy, while the other half received a placebo. Researchers found that the RSV vaccine reduced RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) by nearly 83% and reduced the risk of developing severe RSV-associated LRTD by 94%. The most commonly reported side effects were injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint stiffness/pain. Ten patients who received Arexvy and four patients who received placebo experienced atrial fibrillation within 30 days of vaccination. The company is planning to assess risk for atrial fibrillation in postmarking studies, the FDA said. The European Medicine Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended approval of Arexvy on April 25, 2023, on the basis of data from the same clinical trial.
GSK said that the U.S. launch of Arexvy will occur sometime in the fall before the 2023/2024 RSV season, but the company did not provide exact dates. "Today marks a turning point in our effort to reduce the significant burden of RSV," said GSK’s chief scientific officer, Tony Wood, PhD, in a company statement. "Our focus now is to ensure eligible older adults in the U.S. can access the vaccine as quickly as possible and to progress regulatory review in other countries."
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Arexvy, manufactured by GSK, is the world’s first RSV vaccine for adults aged 60 years and older, the company said in an announcement.
Every year, RSV is responsible for 60,000–120,000 hospitalizations and 6,000–10,000 deaths among U.S. adults older than age, according to the FDA. Older adults with underlying health conditions — such as diabetes, a weakened immune system, or lung or heart disease — are at high risk for severe disease. "Today’s approval of the first RSV vaccine is an important public health achievement to prevent a disease which can be life-threatening and reflects the FDA’s continued commitment to facilitating the development of safe and effective vaccines for use in the United States," said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement.
The FDA approval of Arexvy was based on a clinical study of approximately 25,000 patients. Half of these patients received Arexvy, while the other half received a placebo. Researchers found that the RSV vaccine reduced RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) by nearly 83% and reduced the risk of developing severe RSV-associated LRTD by 94%. The most commonly reported side effects were injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint stiffness/pain. Ten patients who received Arexvy and four patients who received placebo experienced atrial fibrillation within 30 days of vaccination. The company is planning to assess risk for atrial fibrillation in postmarking studies, the FDA said. The European Medicine Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended approval of Arexvy on April 25, 2023, on the basis of data from the same clinical trial.
GSK said that the U.S. launch of Arexvy will occur sometime in the fall before the 2023/2024 RSV season, but the company did not provide exact dates. "Today marks a turning point in our effort to reduce the significant burden of RSV," said GSK’s chief scientific officer, Tony Wood, PhD, in a company statement. "Our focus now is to ensure eligible older adults in the U.S. can access the vaccine as quickly as possible and to progress regulatory review in other countries."
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Arexvy, manufactured by GSK, is the world’s first RSV vaccine for adults aged 60 years and older, the company said in an announcement.
Every year, RSV is responsible for 60,000–120,000 hospitalizations and 6,000–10,000 deaths among U.S. adults older than age, according to the FDA. Older adults with underlying health conditions — such as diabetes, a weakened immune system, or lung or heart disease — are at high risk for severe disease. "Today’s approval of the first RSV vaccine is an important public health achievement to prevent a disease which can be life-threatening and reflects the FDA’s continued commitment to facilitating the development of safe and effective vaccines for use in the United States," said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement.
The FDA approval of Arexvy was based on a clinical study of approximately 25,000 patients. Half of these patients received Arexvy, while the other half received a placebo. Researchers found that the RSV vaccine reduced RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) by nearly 83% and reduced the risk of developing severe RSV-associated LRTD by 94%. The most commonly reported side effects were injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint stiffness/pain. Ten patients who received Arexvy and four patients who received placebo experienced atrial fibrillation within 30 days of vaccination. The company is planning to assess risk for atrial fibrillation in postmarking studies, the FDA said. The European Medicine Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended approval of Arexvy on April 25, 2023, on the basis of data from the same clinical trial.
GSK said that the U.S. launch of Arexvy will occur sometime in the fall before the 2023/2024 RSV season, but the company did not provide exact dates. "Today marks a turning point in our effort to reduce the significant burden of RSV," said GSK’s chief scientific officer, Tony Wood, PhD, in a company statement. "Our focus now is to ensure eligible older adults in the U.S. can access the vaccine as quickly as possible and to progress regulatory review in other countries."
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FMT in a pill: FDA approves second product to prevent C. diff recurrence
The recent approval of the first oral fecal-derived microbiota therapy to prevent the recurrence of Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection in patients was welcome news for physicians who’ve struggled under the weight of having too few treatment options for the prevention of C. diff recurrence.
The product, developed by Massachusetts-based Seres Therepeutics and marketed as Vowst, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 26. It is approved for use in adults who have already been treated with antibiotics for a recurrent infection with C. diff bacteria.
and is designed to be delivered in four capsules taken daily for 3 days.
Gastroenterologist Phillip I. Tarr, MD, division chief of gastroenterology at Washington University, St. Louis, and chair of the American Gastroenterological Association Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education, said that prevention of recurrent C. diff infection “remains challenging,” and that Vowst “provides the first FDA-approved, orally administered microbiome therapeutic with which to achieve this goal. This advance also makes us optimistic we might soon be able to prevent other disorders by managing gut microbial communities.”
Vowst is the second therapy derived from human stool to be approved for the indication in less than 6 months. In December, the FDA approved Rebyota (Ferring), a rectally delivered treatment that also uses microbes from donor feces. Both products were given priority review, orphan drug, and breakthrough therapy designations by the agency.
C. diff infection can be aggravated by an alteration of normal gut flora associated with antibiotics treatment, leading to cycles of repeated infections. Infection can produce diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and severe morbidity. In the United States, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 deaths per year are linked to C. diff. Risk factors for recurrent infection include being 65 or older, hospitalization, being in a nursing home, a weakened immune system, and previous infection with C. diff.
Therapies transplanting fecal microbiota from donors have been used since the 1950s as treatments for recurrent C. diff infection, and in the past decade, as stool banks recruiting screened donors have made fecal microbiota transplants, or FMT, standard of care. However, only in recent years have fecal-derived therapies become subject to standardized safety and efficacy testing.
Both the current FDA-approved products, Rebyota and Vowst, were shown in randomized controlled trials to reduce recurrence of C. diff infection, compared with placebo. In a phase 3 clinical trial of Rebyota (n = 262) in antibiotic-treated patients, one rectally administered dose reduced recurrence of C. diff infection by 70.6% at 8 weeks, compared with 57.5% for placebo. A phase 3 study of Vowst (n = 281) showed recurrence in treated subjects to be 12.4% at 8 weeks, compared with nearly 40% of those receiving placebo (relative risk, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.58; P less than .001).
Despite screening protocols that have become increasingly homogenized and rigorous, FMT is associated with the risk of introducing pathogens. Vowst is manufactured with purified bacterial spores derived from donor feces, not whole stool. Nonetheless, FDA noted in its statement that Vowst could still potentially introduce infectious agents or allergens.
Antibiotics are still first-line treatment
In an interview, Jessica Allegretti, MD, MPH, AGAF, medical director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that having two FDA-approved therapies with different means of administration “is great for the field and great for patients. These are both meant to be used after a course of antibiotics, so antibiotics are still the mainstay of treatment for C. diff and recurrent C. diff, but we now have more options to prevent recurrence.”
The convenience of an oral therapy that can be taken at home is “very attractive,” Dr. Allegretti added, noting that there will also be patients “who either don’t want to or can’t take capsules, for whom a rectal administration [in a health care setting] may be preferred.”
Dr. Allegretti, who has used FMT to treat recurrent C. difficile for more than a decade, said that she expected traditional FMT using screened donor stool to remain available even as the new products are adopted by clinicians. FMT centers like OpenBiome “will continue to provide access for patients who either don’t have the ability to get the FDA-approved products because of insurance coverage, or for financial reasons, or maybe neither of the new products is appropriate for them,” she said. “I do think there will always be a need for the traditional option. The more options that we have available the better.”
TD Cowen analyst Joseph Thome told Reuters that the drug could be priced close to $20,000 per course, expecting peak sales of $750 million in the U.S. in 2033.
Dr. Allegretti disclosed consulting work for Seres Therapeutics, Ferring, and other manufacturers. She is a member of OpenBiome’s clinical advisory board.
The recent approval of the first oral fecal-derived microbiota therapy to prevent the recurrence of Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection in patients was welcome news for physicians who’ve struggled under the weight of having too few treatment options for the prevention of C. diff recurrence.
The product, developed by Massachusetts-based Seres Therepeutics and marketed as Vowst, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 26. It is approved for use in adults who have already been treated with antibiotics for a recurrent infection with C. diff bacteria.
and is designed to be delivered in four capsules taken daily for 3 days.
Gastroenterologist Phillip I. Tarr, MD, division chief of gastroenterology at Washington University, St. Louis, and chair of the American Gastroenterological Association Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education, said that prevention of recurrent C. diff infection “remains challenging,” and that Vowst “provides the first FDA-approved, orally administered microbiome therapeutic with which to achieve this goal. This advance also makes us optimistic we might soon be able to prevent other disorders by managing gut microbial communities.”
Vowst is the second therapy derived from human stool to be approved for the indication in less than 6 months. In December, the FDA approved Rebyota (Ferring), a rectally delivered treatment that also uses microbes from donor feces. Both products were given priority review, orphan drug, and breakthrough therapy designations by the agency.
C. diff infection can be aggravated by an alteration of normal gut flora associated with antibiotics treatment, leading to cycles of repeated infections. Infection can produce diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and severe morbidity. In the United States, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 deaths per year are linked to C. diff. Risk factors for recurrent infection include being 65 or older, hospitalization, being in a nursing home, a weakened immune system, and previous infection with C. diff.
Therapies transplanting fecal microbiota from donors have been used since the 1950s as treatments for recurrent C. diff infection, and in the past decade, as stool banks recruiting screened donors have made fecal microbiota transplants, or FMT, standard of care. However, only in recent years have fecal-derived therapies become subject to standardized safety and efficacy testing.
Both the current FDA-approved products, Rebyota and Vowst, were shown in randomized controlled trials to reduce recurrence of C. diff infection, compared with placebo. In a phase 3 clinical trial of Rebyota (n = 262) in antibiotic-treated patients, one rectally administered dose reduced recurrence of C. diff infection by 70.6% at 8 weeks, compared with 57.5% for placebo. A phase 3 study of Vowst (n = 281) showed recurrence in treated subjects to be 12.4% at 8 weeks, compared with nearly 40% of those receiving placebo (relative risk, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.58; P less than .001).
Despite screening protocols that have become increasingly homogenized and rigorous, FMT is associated with the risk of introducing pathogens. Vowst is manufactured with purified bacterial spores derived from donor feces, not whole stool. Nonetheless, FDA noted in its statement that Vowst could still potentially introduce infectious agents or allergens.
Antibiotics are still first-line treatment
In an interview, Jessica Allegretti, MD, MPH, AGAF, medical director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that having two FDA-approved therapies with different means of administration “is great for the field and great for patients. These are both meant to be used after a course of antibiotics, so antibiotics are still the mainstay of treatment for C. diff and recurrent C. diff, but we now have more options to prevent recurrence.”
The convenience of an oral therapy that can be taken at home is “very attractive,” Dr. Allegretti added, noting that there will also be patients “who either don’t want to or can’t take capsules, for whom a rectal administration [in a health care setting] may be preferred.”
Dr. Allegretti, who has used FMT to treat recurrent C. difficile for more than a decade, said that she expected traditional FMT using screened donor stool to remain available even as the new products are adopted by clinicians. FMT centers like OpenBiome “will continue to provide access for patients who either don’t have the ability to get the FDA-approved products because of insurance coverage, or for financial reasons, or maybe neither of the new products is appropriate for them,” she said. “I do think there will always be a need for the traditional option. The more options that we have available the better.”
TD Cowen analyst Joseph Thome told Reuters that the drug could be priced close to $20,000 per course, expecting peak sales of $750 million in the U.S. in 2033.
Dr. Allegretti disclosed consulting work for Seres Therapeutics, Ferring, and other manufacturers. She is a member of OpenBiome’s clinical advisory board.
The recent approval of the first oral fecal-derived microbiota therapy to prevent the recurrence of Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection in patients was welcome news for physicians who’ve struggled under the weight of having too few treatment options for the prevention of C. diff recurrence.
The product, developed by Massachusetts-based Seres Therepeutics and marketed as Vowst, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 26. It is approved for use in adults who have already been treated with antibiotics for a recurrent infection with C. diff bacteria.
and is designed to be delivered in four capsules taken daily for 3 days.
Gastroenterologist Phillip I. Tarr, MD, division chief of gastroenterology at Washington University, St. Louis, and chair of the American Gastroenterological Association Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education, said that prevention of recurrent C. diff infection “remains challenging,” and that Vowst “provides the first FDA-approved, orally administered microbiome therapeutic with which to achieve this goal. This advance also makes us optimistic we might soon be able to prevent other disorders by managing gut microbial communities.”
Vowst is the second therapy derived from human stool to be approved for the indication in less than 6 months. In December, the FDA approved Rebyota (Ferring), a rectally delivered treatment that also uses microbes from donor feces. Both products were given priority review, orphan drug, and breakthrough therapy designations by the agency.
C. diff infection can be aggravated by an alteration of normal gut flora associated with antibiotics treatment, leading to cycles of repeated infections. Infection can produce diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and severe morbidity. In the United States, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 deaths per year are linked to C. diff. Risk factors for recurrent infection include being 65 or older, hospitalization, being in a nursing home, a weakened immune system, and previous infection with C. diff.
Therapies transplanting fecal microbiota from donors have been used since the 1950s as treatments for recurrent C. diff infection, and in the past decade, as stool banks recruiting screened donors have made fecal microbiota transplants, or FMT, standard of care. However, only in recent years have fecal-derived therapies become subject to standardized safety and efficacy testing.
Both the current FDA-approved products, Rebyota and Vowst, were shown in randomized controlled trials to reduce recurrence of C. diff infection, compared with placebo. In a phase 3 clinical trial of Rebyota (n = 262) in antibiotic-treated patients, one rectally administered dose reduced recurrence of C. diff infection by 70.6% at 8 weeks, compared with 57.5% for placebo. A phase 3 study of Vowst (n = 281) showed recurrence in treated subjects to be 12.4% at 8 weeks, compared with nearly 40% of those receiving placebo (relative risk, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.58; P less than .001).
Despite screening protocols that have become increasingly homogenized and rigorous, FMT is associated with the risk of introducing pathogens. Vowst is manufactured with purified bacterial spores derived from donor feces, not whole stool. Nonetheless, FDA noted in its statement that Vowst could still potentially introduce infectious agents or allergens.
Antibiotics are still first-line treatment
In an interview, Jessica Allegretti, MD, MPH, AGAF, medical director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that having two FDA-approved therapies with different means of administration “is great for the field and great for patients. These are both meant to be used after a course of antibiotics, so antibiotics are still the mainstay of treatment for C. diff and recurrent C. diff, but we now have more options to prevent recurrence.”
The convenience of an oral therapy that can be taken at home is “very attractive,” Dr. Allegretti added, noting that there will also be patients “who either don’t want to or can’t take capsules, for whom a rectal administration [in a health care setting] may be preferred.”
Dr. Allegretti, who has used FMT to treat recurrent C. difficile for more than a decade, said that she expected traditional FMT using screened donor stool to remain available even as the new products are adopted by clinicians. FMT centers like OpenBiome “will continue to provide access for patients who either don’t have the ability to get the FDA-approved products because of insurance coverage, or for financial reasons, or maybe neither of the new products is appropriate for them,” she said. “I do think there will always be a need for the traditional option. The more options that we have available the better.”
TD Cowen analyst Joseph Thome told Reuters that the drug could be priced close to $20,000 per course, expecting peak sales of $750 million in the U.S. in 2033.
Dr. Allegretti disclosed consulting work for Seres Therapeutics, Ferring, and other manufacturers. She is a member of OpenBiome’s clinical advisory board.
FDA approves injectable treatment for cheek lines, wrinkles
The treatment, marketed as Sculptra, is the first FDA-approved PLLA collagen stimulator that, “when injected into the cheek area, helps stimulate natural collagen production to smooth wrinkles and improve skin quality such as firmness and glow,” according to a press release from the manufacturer, Galderma. Sculptra was first approved for aesthetic use in 2009 in the United States and is now available in more than 40 countries.
With this expanded approval, PLLA-SCA is now indicated for use in people with healthy immune systems for correcting shallow to deep nasolabial fold contour deficiencies, fine lines, and wrinkles in the cheeks and other facial areas.
94% have enduring improvement at 2 years
In a clinical trial, PLLA-SCA achieved the primary efficacy endpoint of at least a 1-grade improvement in wrinkles on both cheeks concurrently at rest and its secondary endpoint of improving cheek wrinkles when smiling for up to 2 years, the company states.
According to Galderma, patients showed aesthetic improvement in cheek wrinkles throughout the study; 96% showed improvement at 3 months, 94% showed improvement at 1 year, and 94% showed improvement at 2 years.
The most common side effects after initial treatment are injection site swelling, tenderness, redness, pain, bruising, bleeding, itching, and lumps, according to the company. Other side effects may include small lumps under the skin that are sometimes noticeable when pressing on the treated area.
PLLA-SCA is available only through a licensed practitioner and should not be used by people allergic to any ingredient of the product or who have a history of keloid formation or hypertrophic scarring. The company notes that safety has not been established in patients who are pregnant, lactating, breastfeeding, or younger than 18.
In its instruction to clinicians, the company warns the treatment should not be injected into the blood vessels “as it may cause vascular occlusion, infarction, or embolic phenomena.”
Skin sores, cysts, pimples, rashes, hives, or infection should be healed completely before injecting the treatment, the company cautions. PLLA-SCA should not be injected into the red area of the lip or in the periorbital area.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The treatment, marketed as Sculptra, is the first FDA-approved PLLA collagen stimulator that, “when injected into the cheek area, helps stimulate natural collagen production to smooth wrinkles and improve skin quality such as firmness and glow,” according to a press release from the manufacturer, Galderma. Sculptra was first approved for aesthetic use in 2009 in the United States and is now available in more than 40 countries.
With this expanded approval, PLLA-SCA is now indicated for use in people with healthy immune systems for correcting shallow to deep nasolabial fold contour deficiencies, fine lines, and wrinkles in the cheeks and other facial areas.
94% have enduring improvement at 2 years
In a clinical trial, PLLA-SCA achieved the primary efficacy endpoint of at least a 1-grade improvement in wrinkles on both cheeks concurrently at rest and its secondary endpoint of improving cheek wrinkles when smiling for up to 2 years, the company states.
According to Galderma, patients showed aesthetic improvement in cheek wrinkles throughout the study; 96% showed improvement at 3 months, 94% showed improvement at 1 year, and 94% showed improvement at 2 years.
The most common side effects after initial treatment are injection site swelling, tenderness, redness, pain, bruising, bleeding, itching, and lumps, according to the company. Other side effects may include small lumps under the skin that are sometimes noticeable when pressing on the treated area.
PLLA-SCA is available only through a licensed practitioner and should not be used by people allergic to any ingredient of the product or who have a history of keloid formation or hypertrophic scarring. The company notes that safety has not been established in patients who are pregnant, lactating, breastfeeding, or younger than 18.
In its instruction to clinicians, the company warns the treatment should not be injected into the blood vessels “as it may cause vascular occlusion, infarction, or embolic phenomena.”
Skin sores, cysts, pimples, rashes, hives, or infection should be healed completely before injecting the treatment, the company cautions. PLLA-SCA should not be injected into the red area of the lip or in the periorbital area.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The treatment, marketed as Sculptra, is the first FDA-approved PLLA collagen stimulator that, “when injected into the cheek area, helps stimulate natural collagen production to smooth wrinkles and improve skin quality such as firmness and glow,” according to a press release from the manufacturer, Galderma. Sculptra was first approved for aesthetic use in 2009 in the United States and is now available in more than 40 countries.
With this expanded approval, PLLA-SCA is now indicated for use in people with healthy immune systems for correcting shallow to deep nasolabial fold contour deficiencies, fine lines, and wrinkles in the cheeks and other facial areas.
94% have enduring improvement at 2 years
In a clinical trial, PLLA-SCA achieved the primary efficacy endpoint of at least a 1-grade improvement in wrinkles on both cheeks concurrently at rest and its secondary endpoint of improving cheek wrinkles when smiling for up to 2 years, the company states.
According to Galderma, patients showed aesthetic improvement in cheek wrinkles throughout the study; 96% showed improvement at 3 months, 94% showed improvement at 1 year, and 94% showed improvement at 2 years.
The most common side effects after initial treatment are injection site swelling, tenderness, redness, pain, bruising, bleeding, itching, and lumps, according to the company. Other side effects may include small lumps under the skin that are sometimes noticeable when pressing on the treated area.
PLLA-SCA is available only through a licensed practitioner and should not be used by people allergic to any ingredient of the product or who have a history of keloid formation or hypertrophic scarring. The company notes that safety has not been established in patients who are pregnant, lactating, breastfeeding, or younger than 18.
In its instruction to clinicians, the company warns the treatment should not be injected into the blood vessels “as it may cause vascular occlusion, infarction, or embolic phenomena.”
Skin sores, cysts, pimples, rashes, hives, or infection should be healed completely before injecting the treatment, the company cautions. PLLA-SCA should not be injected into the red area of the lip or in the periorbital area.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA gives fast-track approval to new ALS drug
the debilitating and deadly disease for which there is no cure.
Most people with ALS die within 3-5 years of when symptoms appear, usually of respiratory failure.
The newly approved drug, called Qalsody, is made by the Swiss company Biogen. The FDA fast-tracked the approval based on early trial results. The agency said in a news release that its decision was based on the demonstrated ability of the drug to reduce a protein in the blood that is a sign of degeneration of brain and nerve cells.
While the drug was shown to impact the chemical process in the body linked to degeneration, there was no significant change in people’s symptoms during the first 28 weeks that they took the drug, Biogen said in a news release. But the company noted that some patients did see improved functioning after starting treatment.
“I have observed the positive impact Qalsody has on slowing the progression of ALS in people with SOD1 mutations,” Timothy M. Miller, MD, PhD, researcher and codirector of the ALS Center at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a statement released by Biogen. “The FDA’s approval of Qalsody gives me hope that people living with this rare form of ALS could experience a reduction in decline in strength, clinical function, and respiratory function.”
Qalsody is given to people via a spinal injection, with an initial course of three injections every 2 weeks. People then get the injection once every 28 days.
The new treatment is approved only for people with a rare kind of ALS called SOD1-ALS, which is known for a genetic mutation. While ALS affects up to 32,000 people in the United States, just 2% of people with ALS have the SOD1 gene mutation. The FDA says the number of people in the United States who could use Qalsody is about 500.
In trials, 147 people received either Qalsody or a placebo, and the treatment significantly reduced the level of a protein in people’s blood that is associated with the loss of control of voluntary muscles.
Because Qalsody received a fast-track approval from the FDA, it must still provide more research data in the future, including from a trial examining how the drug affects people who carry the SOD1 gene but do not yet show symptoms of ALS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
the debilitating and deadly disease for which there is no cure.
Most people with ALS die within 3-5 years of when symptoms appear, usually of respiratory failure.
The newly approved drug, called Qalsody, is made by the Swiss company Biogen. The FDA fast-tracked the approval based on early trial results. The agency said in a news release that its decision was based on the demonstrated ability of the drug to reduce a protein in the blood that is a sign of degeneration of brain and nerve cells.
While the drug was shown to impact the chemical process in the body linked to degeneration, there was no significant change in people’s symptoms during the first 28 weeks that they took the drug, Biogen said in a news release. But the company noted that some patients did see improved functioning after starting treatment.
“I have observed the positive impact Qalsody has on slowing the progression of ALS in people with SOD1 mutations,” Timothy M. Miller, MD, PhD, researcher and codirector of the ALS Center at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a statement released by Biogen. “The FDA’s approval of Qalsody gives me hope that people living with this rare form of ALS could experience a reduction in decline in strength, clinical function, and respiratory function.”
Qalsody is given to people via a spinal injection, with an initial course of three injections every 2 weeks. People then get the injection once every 28 days.
The new treatment is approved only for people with a rare kind of ALS called SOD1-ALS, which is known for a genetic mutation. While ALS affects up to 32,000 people in the United States, just 2% of people with ALS have the SOD1 gene mutation. The FDA says the number of people in the United States who could use Qalsody is about 500.
In trials, 147 people received either Qalsody or a placebo, and the treatment significantly reduced the level of a protein in people’s blood that is associated with the loss of control of voluntary muscles.
Because Qalsody received a fast-track approval from the FDA, it must still provide more research data in the future, including from a trial examining how the drug affects people who carry the SOD1 gene but do not yet show symptoms of ALS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
the debilitating and deadly disease for which there is no cure.
Most people with ALS die within 3-5 years of when symptoms appear, usually of respiratory failure.
The newly approved drug, called Qalsody, is made by the Swiss company Biogen. The FDA fast-tracked the approval based on early trial results. The agency said in a news release that its decision was based on the demonstrated ability of the drug to reduce a protein in the blood that is a sign of degeneration of brain and nerve cells.
While the drug was shown to impact the chemical process in the body linked to degeneration, there was no significant change in people’s symptoms during the first 28 weeks that they took the drug, Biogen said in a news release. But the company noted that some patients did see improved functioning after starting treatment.
“I have observed the positive impact Qalsody has on slowing the progression of ALS in people with SOD1 mutations,” Timothy M. Miller, MD, PhD, researcher and codirector of the ALS Center at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a statement released by Biogen. “The FDA’s approval of Qalsody gives me hope that people living with this rare form of ALS could experience a reduction in decline in strength, clinical function, and respiratory function.”
Qalsody is given to people via a spinal injection, with an initial course of three injections every 2 weeks. People then get the injection once every 28 days.
The new treatment is approved only for people with a rare kind of ALS called SOD1-ALS, which is known for a genetic mutation. While ALS affects up to 32,000 people in the United States, just 2% of people with ALS have the SOD1 gene mutation. The FDA says the number of people in the United States who could use Qalsody is about 500.
In trials, 147 people received either Qalsody or a placebo, and the treatment significantly reduced the level of a protein in people’s blood that is associated with the loss of control of voluntary muscles.
Because Qalsody received a fast-track approval from the FDA, it must still provide more research data in the future, including from a trial examining how the drug affects people who carry the SOD1 gene but do not yet show symptoms of ALS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC backs FDA’s call for second COVID booster for those at high risk
This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.
“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.
The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.
But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.
The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.
People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.
Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.
If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”
The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.
The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs
The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.
For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.
All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.
For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.
ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.
“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.
“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.
Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
New vaccine by fall
CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.
“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.
“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com .
This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.
“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.
The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.
But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.
The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.
People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.
Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.
If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”
The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.
The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs
The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.
For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.
All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.
For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.
ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.
“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.
“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.
Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
New vaccine by fall
CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.
“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.
“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com .
This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.
“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.
The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.
But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.
The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.
People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.
Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.
If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”
The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.
The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs
The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.
For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.
All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.
For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.
ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.
“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.
“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.
Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
New vaccine by fall
CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.
“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.
“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com .
Most adults, more than one in three children take dietary supplements: Report
The new figures continue a 15-year trend of small, steady increases in how many people in the United States use the products that can deliver essential nutrients, but their usage includes a risk of getting more nutrients than recommended. In 2007, 48% of adults took supplements, and that figure has reached nearly 59% in this latest count.
The new report looked at whether people took a multivitamin, as well as other more specific supplements. Among children and adolescents aged 19 and under, 23.5% took a multivitamin, while 31.5% of adults reported taking one. The most common specialized supplement that people took was vitamin D.
The report, released by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, compiled survey data from 2017 through 2020 in which 15,548 people reported their household’s usage of dietary supplements. Dietary supplements include vitamins, minerals, herbs, or other botanicals that are taken by mouth in pill, capsule, tablet, or liquid form. The researchers said the vitamin and supplement market is large and growing, totaling $55.7 billion in sales in 2020.
More than one-third of adults (36%) reported taking more than one supplement, and one in four people aged 60 and older said they took four or more.
The data showed demographic trends in who uses dietary supplements. Women and girls were more likely to take supplements than men and boys, although there were similar usage levels for both genders among 1- to 2-year-olds. People with higher education or income levels were more likely to use supplements. Asian people and White people were more likely to take supplements, compared with Hispanic people and Black people.
The authors wrote that monitoring trends in supplement use is important because the products “contribute substantially to nutrient intake as well as increase the risk of excessive intake of certain micronutrients.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
The new figures continue a 15-year trend of small, steady increases in how many people in the United States use the products that can deliver essential nutrients, but their usage includes a risk of getting more nutrients than recommended. In 2007, 48% of adults took supplements, and that figure has reached nearly 59% in this latest count.
The new report looked at whether people took a multivitamin, as well as other more specific supplements. Among children and adolescents aged 19 and under, 23.5% took a multivitamin, while 31.5% of adults reported taking one. The most common specialized supplement that people took was vitamin D.
The report, released by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, compiled survey data from 2017 through 2020 in which 15,548 people reported their household’s usage of dietary supplements. Dietary supplements include vitamins, minerals, herbs, or other botanicals that are taken by mouth in pill, capsule, tablet, or liquid form. The researchers said the vitamin and supplement market is large and growing, totaling $55.7 billion in sales in 2020.
More than one-third of adults (36%) reported taking more than one supplement, and one in four people aged 60 and older said they took four or more.
The data showed demographic trends in who uses dietary supplements. Women and girls were more likely to take supplements than men and boys, although there were similar usage levels for both genders among 1- to 2-year-olds. People with higher education or income levels were more likely to use supplements. Asian people and White people were more likely to take supplements, compared with Hispanic people and Black people.
The authors wrote that monitoring trends in supplement use is important because the products “contribute substantially to nutrient intake as well as increase the risk of excessive intake of certain micronutrients.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
The new figures continue a 15-year trend of small, steady increases in how many people in the United States use the products that can deliver essential nutrients, but their usage includes a risk of getting more nutrients than recommended. In 2007, 48% of adults took supplements, and that figure has reached nearly 59% in this latest count.
The new report looked at whether people took a multivitamin, as well as other more specific supplements. Among children and adolescents aged 19 and under, 23.5% took a multivitamin, while 31.5% of adults reported taking one. The most common specialized supplement that people took was vitamin D.
The report, released by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, compiled survey data from 2017 through 2020 in which 15,548 people reported their household’s usage of dietary supplements. Dietary supplements include vitamins, minerals, herbs, or other botanicals that are taken by mouth in pill, capsule, tablet, or liquid form. The researchers said the vitamin and supplement market is large and growing, totaling $55.7 billion in sales in 2020.
More than one-third of adults (36%) reported taking more than one supplement, and one in four people aged 60 and older said they took four or more.
The data showed demographic trends in who uses dietary supplements. Women and girls were more likely to take supplements than men and boys, although there were similar usage levels for both genders among 1- to 2-year-olds. People with higher education or income levels were more likely to use supplements. Asian people and White people were more likely to take supplements, compared with Hispanic people and Black people.
The authors wrote that monitoring trends in supplement use is important because the products “contribute substantially to nutrient intake as well as increase the risk of excessive intake of certain micronutrients.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.