User login
To stay: Two more cancer indications with ‘dangling approvals’
Two more cancer indications that had been granted accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration are going to stay in place, at least for now. This was the verdict after the second day of a historic 3-day meeting (April 27-29) and follows a similar verdict from day 1.
Federal advisers so far have supported the idea of maintaining conditional approvals of some cancer indications for a number of immune checkpoint inhibitors, despite poor results in studies that were meant to confirm the benefit of these medicines for certain patients.
On the second day (April 28) of the FDA meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) supported the views of pharmaceutical companies in two more cases of what top agency staff call “dangling accelerated approvals.”
ODAC voted 10-1 in favor of maintaining the indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial.
ODAC also voted 5-3 that day in favor of maintaining accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for first-line cisplatin- and carboplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma.
The FDA often follows the advice of its panels, but it is not bound to do so. If the FDA were to decide to strip the indications in question from these PD-1 medicines, such decisions would not remove these drugs from the market. The three drugs have already been approved for a number of other cancer indications.
Off-label prescribing is not uncommon in oncology, but a loss of an approved indication would affect reimbursement for these medicines, Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president of oncology clinical research at Merck (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab), told ODAC members during a discussion of the possible consequences of removing the indications in question.
“Access to those treatments may end up being substantially limited, and really the best way to ensure that there’s access is to maintain FDA approval,” Dr. Ebbinghaus said.
Another participant at the meeting asked the panel and the FDA to consider the burden on patients in paying for medicines that have not yet proved to be beneficial.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the ODAC panel included physicians who see cancer patients.
“You’re used to trying different types of treatments in hopes that something will work,” she said. “Shouldn’t cancer patients be eligible for free treatment in clinical trials instead of paying for treatment that isn’t proven to work?”
Rapid development of PD-1 drugs
Top officials at the FDA framed the challenges with accelerated approvals for immunotherapy drugs in an April 21 article in The New England Journal of Medicine. Over the course of about 6 years, the FDA approved six of these PD-1 or PD-L1 drugs for more than 75 indications in oncology, wrote Richard Pazdur, MD, and Julia A. Beaver, MD, of the FDA.
“Development of drugs in this class occurred more rapidly than that in any other therapeutic area in history,” they wrote.
In 10 cases, the required follow-up trials did not confirm the expected benefit, and yet marketing authorization for these drugs continued, leading Dr. Pazdur and Dr. Beaver to dub these “dangling” accelerated approvals. Four of these indications were voluntarily withdrawn. For the other six indications, the FDA sought feedback from ODAC during the 3-day meeting. Over the first 2 days of the meeting, ODAC recommended that three of these cancer indications remain. Three more will be considered on the last day of the meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two more cancer indications that had been granted accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration are going to stay in place, at least for now. This was the verdict after the second day of a historic 3-day meeting (April 27-29) and follows a similar verdict from day 1.
Federal advisers so far have supported the idea of maintaining conditional approvals of some cancer indications for a number of immune checkpoint inhibitors, despite poor results in studies that were meant to confirm the benefit of these medicines for certain patients.
On the second day (April 28) of the FDA meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) supported the views of pharmaceutical companies in two more cases of what top agency staff call “dangling accelerated approvals.”
ODAC voted 10-1 in favor of maintaining the indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial.
ODAC also voted 5-3 that day in favor of maintaining accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for first-line cisplatin- and carboplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma.
The FDA often follows the advice of its panels, but it is not bound to do so. If the FDA were to decide to strip the indications in question from these PD-1 medicines, such decisions would not remove these drugs from the market. The three drugs have already been approved for a number of other cancer indications.
Off-label prescribing is not uncommon in oncology, but a loss of an approved indication would affect reimbursement for these medicines, Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president of oncology clinical research at Merck (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab), told ODAC members during a discussion of the possible consequences of removing the indications in question.
“Access to those treatments may end up being substantially limited, and really the best way to ensure that there’s access is to maintain FDA approval,” Dr. Ebbinghaus said.
Another participant at the meeting asked the panel and the FDA to consider the burden on patients in paying for medicines that have not yet proved to be beneficial.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the ODAC panel included physicians who see cancer patients.
“You’re used to trying different types of treatments in hopes that something will work,” she said. “Shouldn’t cancer patients be eligible for free treatment in clinical trials instead of paying for treatment that isn’t proven to work?”
Rapid development of PD-1 drugs
Top officials at the FDA framed the challenges with accelerated approvals for immunotherapy drugs in an April 21 article in The New England Journal of Medicine. Over the course of about 6 years, the FDA approved six of these PD-1 or PD-L1 drugs for more than 75 indications in oncology, wrote Richard Pazdur, MD, and Julia A. Beaver, MD, of the FDA.
“Development of drugs in this class occurred more rapidly than that in any other therapeutic area in history,” they wrote.
In 10 cases, the required follow-up trials did not confirm the expected benefit, and yet marketing authorization for these drugs continued, leading Dr. Pazdur and Dr. Beaver to dub these “dangling” accelerated approvals. Four of these indications were voluntarily withdrawn. For the other six indications, the FDA sought feedback from ODAC during the 3-day meeting. Over the first 2 days of the meeting, ODAC recommended that three of these cancer indications remain. Three more will be considered on the last day of the meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two more cancer indications that had been granted accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration are going to stay in place, at least for now. This was the verdict after the second day of a historic 3-day meeting (April 27-29) and follows a similar verdict from day 1.
Federal advisers so far have supported the idea of maintaining conditional approvals of some cancer indications for a number of immune checkpoint inhibitors, despite poor results in studies that were meant to confirm the benefit of these medicines for certain patients.
On the second day (April 28) of the FDA meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) supported the views of pharmaceutical companies in two more cases of what top agency staff call “dangling accelerated approvals.”
ODAC voted 10-1 in favor of maintaining the indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial.
ODAC also voted 5-3 that day in favor of maintaining accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for first-line cisplatin- and carboplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma.
The FDA often follows the advice of its panels, but it is not bound to do so. If the FDA were to decide to strip the indications in question from these PD-1 medicines, such decisions would not remove these drugs from the market. The three drugs have already been approved for a number of other cancer indications.
Off-label prescribing is not uncommon in oncology, but a loss of an approved indication would affect reimbursement for these medicines, Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president of oncology clinical research at Merck (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab), told ODAC members during a discussion of the possible consequences of removing the indications in question.
“Access to those treatments may end up being substantially limited, and really the best way to ensure that there’s access is to maintain FDA approval,” Dr. Ebbinghaus said.
Another participant at the meeting asked the panel and the FDA to consider the burden on patients in paying for medicines that have not yet proved to be beneficial.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the ODAC panel included physicians who see cancer patients.
“You’re used to trying different types of treatments in hopes that something will work,” she said. “Shouldn’t cancer patients be eligible for free treatment in clinical trials instead of paying for treatment that isn’t proven to work?”
Rapid development of PD-1 drugs
Top officials at the FDA framed the challenges with accelerated approvals for immunotherapy drugs in an April 21 article in The New England Journal of Medicine. Over the course of about 6 years, the FDA approved six of these PD-1 or PD-L1 drugs for more than 75 indications in oncology, wrote Richard Pazdur, MD, and Julia A. Beaver, MD, of the FDA.
“Development of drugs in this class occurred more rapidly than that in any other therapeutic area in history,” they wrote.
In 10 cases, the required follow-up trials did not confirm the expected benefit, and yet marketing authorization for these drugs continued, leading Dr. Pazdur and Dr. Beaver to dub these “dangling” accelerated approvals. Four of these indications were voluntarily withdrawn. For the other six indications, the FDA sought feedback from ODAC during the 3-day meeting. Over the first 2 days of the meeting, ODAC recommended that three of these cancer indications remain. Three more will be considered on the last day of the meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA panel backs atezolizumab for mTNBC – at least for now
On the first day of a historic 3-day meeting about drugs that were granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for cancer indications, the first approval to come under discussion is staying in place, at least for now.
Members of the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 7-2 in favor of keeping in place the indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) for use in a certain form of breast cancer. At the same time, the committee urged the manufacturer, Genentech, to do the research needed to prove the medicine works for these patients.
The specific indication is for atezolizumab as part of a combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) whose tumors are PD-L1 positive.
The FDA granted accelerated approval in 2019 for this use of atezolizumab, expecting Genentech to produce more extensive evidence of this benefit. But so far, Genentech has not produced the data proving to the FDA that atezolizumab provides the expected benefit.
The drug was already available for use in bladder cancer, having been granted a full approval for this indication in 2016.
Other accelerated approvals withdrawn
This week’s 3-day ODAC meeting is part of the FDA’s broader reconsideration of what it has described as “dangling accelerated approvals.”
Earlier discussions between the FDA and drugmakers have already triggered four voluntary withdrawals of cancer indications with these accelerated approvals, noted Julia A. Beaver, MD, and Richard Pazdur, MD, two of the FDA’s top regulators of oncology medicine, in an April 21 perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“The small percentage of drugs whose clinical benefit is ultimately not confirmed should be viewed not as a failure of accelerated approval but rather as an expected trade-off in expediting drug development that benefits patients with severe or life-threatening diseases,” Dr. Beaver and Dr. Pazdur wrote.
But making these calls can be tough. On the first day of the meeting, even ODAC panelists who backed Genentech’s bid to maintain an mTNBC indication for atezolizumab expressed discomfort with this choice.
The FDA granted the accelerated approval for use of this drug in March 2019 based on improved progression-free survival from the IMpassion130 trial. But the drug fell short in subsequent efforts to confirm the results seen in that study. The confirmatory IMpassion131 trial failed to meet the primary endpoint, the FDA staff noted in briefing materials for the ODAC meeting.
ODAC panelist Stan Lipkowitz, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, said he expected this vote had been a tough one for all members serving on ODAC that day.
“In some ways, the purist in me said I should have voted no. But when I looked at the data, there are a couple of things that struck me,” said Dr. Lipkowitz, who is the chief of the Women’s Malignancies Branch at NCI’s Center for Cancer Research. “First of all, the landscape hasn’t changed. There’s really no therapy in the first line for triple-negative metastatic that is shown to improve survival.”
Dr. Lipkowitz emphasized that Genentech needs to continue to try to prove atezolizumab works in this setting.
“There needs to be confirmatory study,” Dr. Lipkowitz concluded.
ODAC panelist Matthew Ellis, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said he also understood the difficult outlook for women fighting this cancer, but he voted against maintaining the approval.
“It’s not that I don’t feel the tragedy of these women,” said Dr. Ellis, citing his own decades of clinical experience.
“I just think that the data are the data,” Dr. Ellis said, adding that, in his view, “the only correct interpretation” of the evidence supported a vote against allowing the indication to stay.
The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory committees but is not bound by them.
In a statement issued after the vote, Genentech said it intends to work with the FDA to determine the next steps for this indication of atezolizumab because “the clinically meaningful benefit demonstrated in the IMpassion130 study remains.”
The ODAC meeting continues for 2 more days, and will consider five more cancer indications that have been granted an accelerated approval.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On the first day of a historic 3-day meeting about drugs that were granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for cancer indications, the first approval to come under discussion is staying in place, at least for now.
Members of the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 7-2 in favor of keeping in place the indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) for use in a certain form of breast cancer. At the same time, the committee urged the manufacturer, Genentech, to do the research needed to prove the medicine works for these patients.
The specific indication is for atezolizumab as part of a combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) whose tumors are PD-L1 positive.
The FDA granted accelerated approval in 2019 for this use of atezolizumab, expecting Genentech to produce more extensive evidence of this benefit. But so far, Genentech has not produced the data proving to the FDA that atezolizumab provides the expected benefit.
The drug was already available for use in bladder cancer, having been granted a full approval for this indication in 2016.
Other accelerated approvals withdrawn
This week’s 3-day ODAC meeting is part of the FDA’s broader reconsideration of what it has described as “dangling accelerated approvals.”
Earlier discussions between the FDA and drugmakers have already triggered four voluntary withdrawals of cancer indications with these accelerated approvals, noted Julia A. Beaver, MD, and Richard Pazdur, MD, two of the FDA’s top regulators of oncology medicine, in an April 21 perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“The small percentage of drugs whose clinical benefit is ultimately not confirmed should be viewed not as a failure of accelerated approval but rather as an expected trade-off in expediting drug development that benefits patients with severe or life-threatening diseases,” Dr. Beaver and Dr. Pazdur wrote.
But making these calls can be tough. On the first day of the meeting, even ODAC panelists who backed Genentech’s bid to maintain an mTNBC indication for atezolizumab expressed discomfort with this choice.
The FDA granted the accelerated approval for use of this drug in March 2019 based on improved progression-free survival from the IMpassion130 trial. But the drug fell short in subsequent efforts to confirm the results seen in that study. The confirmatory IMpassion131 trial failed to meet the primary endpoint, the FDA staff noted in briefing materials for the ODAC meeting.
ODAC panelist Stan Lipkowitz, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, said he expected this vote had been a tough one for all members serving on ODAC that day.
“In some ways, the purist in me said I should have voted no. But when I looked at the data, there are a couple of things that struck me,” said Dr. Lipkowitz, who is the chief of the Women’s Malignancies Branch at NCI’s Center for Cancer Research. “First of all, the landscape hasn’t changed. There’s really no therapy in the first line for triple-negative metastatic that is shown to improve survival.”
Dr. Lipkowitz emphasized that Genentech needs to continue to try to prove atezolizumab works in this setting.
“There needs to be confirmatory study,” Dr. Lipkowitz concluded.
ODAC panelist Matthew Ellis, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said he also understood the difficult outlook for women fighting this cancer, but he voted against maintaining the approval.
“It’s not that I don’t feel the tragedy of these women,” said Dr. Ellis, citing his own decades of clinical experience.
“I just think that the data are the data,” Dr. Ellis said, adding that, in his view, “the only correct interpretation” of the evidence supported a vote against allowing the indication to stay.
The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory committees but is not bound by them.
In a statement issued after the vote, Genentech said it intends to work with the FDA to determine the next steps for this indication of atezolizumab because “the clinically meaningful benefit demonstrated in the IMpassion130 study remains.”
The ODAC meeting continues for 2 more days, and will consider five more cancer indications that have been granted an accelerated approval.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On the first day of a historic 3-day meeting about drugs that were granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for cancer indications, the first approval to come under discussion is staying in place, at least for now.
Members of the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 7-2 in favor of keeping in place the indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) for use in a certain form of breast cancer. At the same time, the committee urged the manufacturer, Genentech, to do the research needed to prove the medicine works for these patients.
The specific indication is for atezolizumab as part of a combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) whose tumors are PD-L1 positive.
The FDA granted accelerated approval in 2019 for this use of atezolizumab, expecting Genentech to produce more extensive evidence of this benefit. But so far, Genentech has not produced the data proving to the FDA that atezolizumab provides the expected benefit.
The drug was already available for use in bladder cancer, having been granted a full approval for this indication in 2016.
Other accelerated approvals withdrawn
This week’s 3-day ODAC meeting is part of the FDA’s broader reconsideration of what it has described as “dangling accelerated approvals.”
Earlier discussions between the FDA and drugmakers have already triggered four voluntary withdrawals of cancer indications with these accelerated approvals, noted Julia A. Beaver, MD, and Richard Pazdur, MD, two of the FDA’s top regulators of oncology medicine, in an April 21 perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“The small percentage of drugs whose clinical benefit is ultimately not confirmed should be viewed not as a failure of accelerated approval but rather as an expected trade-off in expediting drug development that benefits patients with severe or life-threatening diseases,” Dr. Beaver and Dr. Pazdur wrote.
But making these calls can be tough. On the first day of the meeting, even ODAC panelists who backed Genentech’s bid to maintain an mTNBC indication for atezolizumab expressed discomfort with this choice.
The FDA granted the accelerated approval for use of this drug in March 2019 based on improved progression-free survival from the IMpassion130 trial. But the drug fell short in subsequent efforts to confirm the results seen in that study. The confirmatory IMpassion131 trial failed to meet the primary endpoint, the FDA staff noted in briefing materials for the ODAC meeting.
ODAC panelist Stan Lipkowitz, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, said he expected this vote had been a tough one for all members serving on ODAC that day.
“In some ways, the purist in me said I should have voted no. But when I looked at the data, there are a couple of things that struck me,” said Dr. Lipkowitz, who is the chief of the Women’s Malignancies Branch at NCI’s Center for Cancer Research. “First of all, the landscape hasn’t changed. There’s really no therapy in the first line for triple-negative metastatic that is shown to improve survival.”
Dr. Lipkowitz emphasized that Genentech needs to continue to try to prove atezolizumab works in this setting.
“There needs to be confirmatory study,” Dr. Lipkowitz concluded.
ODAC panelist Matthew Ellis, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said he also understood the difficult outlook for women fighting this cancer, but he voted against maintaining the approval.
“It’s not that I don’t feel the tragedy of these women,” said Dr. Ellis, citing his own decades of clinical experience.
“I just think that the data are the data,” Dr. Ellis said, adding that, in his view, “the only correct interpretation” of the evidence supported a vote against allowing the indication to stay.
The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory committees but is not bound by them.
In a statement issued after the vote, Genentech said it intends to work with the FDA to determine the next steps for this indication of atezolizumab because “the clinically meaningful benefit demonstrated in the IMpassion130 study remains.”
The ODAC meeting continues for 2 more days, and will consider five more cancer indications that have been granted an accelerated approval.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Feds lift pause of J&J COVID vaccine, add new warning
Use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should resume in the United States for all adults, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention said April 23, although health care providers should warn patients of the risk of developing the rare and serious blood clots that caused the agencies to pause the vaccine’s distribution earlier this month.
“What we are seeing is the overall rate of events was 1.9 cases per million people. In women 18 to 29 years there was an approximate 7 cases per million. The risk is even lower in women over the age of 50 at .9 cases per million,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said in a news briefing the same day.
In the end, the potential benefits of the vaccine far outweighed its risks.
“In terms of benefits, we found that for every 1 million doses of this vaccine, the J&J vaccine could prevent over 650 hospitalizations and 12 deaths among women ages 18-49,” Dr. Walensky said. The potential benefits to women over 50 were even greater: It could prevent 4,700 hospitalizations and 650 deaths.
“In the end, this vaccine was shown to be safe and effective for the vast majority of people,” Dr. Walensky said.
The recommendation to continue the vaccine’s rollout came barely 2 hours after a CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to recommend the pause be lifted. The vote was 10-4 with one abstention.
The decision also includes instructions for the warning directed at women under 50 who have an increased risk of a rare but serious blood clot disorder called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS).
As of April 21, 15 cases of TTS, all in women and 13 of them in women under 50, have been confirmed among 7.98 million doses of the J&J vaccine administered in the United States. Three women have died.
The FDA and CDC recommended the pause on April 13 after reports that 6 women developed a blood clotting disorder 6 to 13 days after they received the J&J vaccine.
William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and a non-voting ACIP member, said in an interview the panel made the right recommendation.
He applauded both the decision to restart the vaccine and the updated warning information that “will explain [TTS] more fully to people, particularly women, who are coming to be vaccinated.”
As to women in the risk group needing to have a choice of vaccines, Dr. Schaffner said that will be addressed differently across the country.
“Every provider will not have alternative vaccines in their location so there will be many different ways to do this. You may have to get this information and select which site you’re going to depending on which vaccine is available if this matter is important to you,” he noted.
ACIP made the decision after a 6-hour emergency meeting to hear evidence on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine's protective benefits against COVID-19 vs. risk of TTS.
In the CDC-FDA press briefing, Dr. Walensky pointed out that over the past few days, as regulators have reviewed the rare events, newly identified patients had been treated appropriately, without the use of heparin, which is not advised for treating TTS.
As a result, regulators felt as if their messages had gotten out to doctors who now knew how to take special precautions when treating patients with the disorder.
She said the Johnson & Johnson shot remained an important option because it was convenient to give and easier to store than the other vaccines currently authorized in the United States.
Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the agency had already added information describing the risk of the rare clotting disorder to its fact sheets for patients and doctors.
Janet Woodcock, MD, acting commissioner of the FDA, said vaccination centers could resume giving the “one and done” shots as early as April 24.
This article was updated April 24, 2021, and first appeared on WebMD.com.
Use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should resume in the United States for all adults, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention said April 23, although health care providers should warn patients of the risk of developing the rare and serious blood clots that caused the agencies to pause the vaccine’s distribution earlier this month.
“What we are seeing is the overall rate of events was 1.9 cases per million people. In women 18 to 29 years there was an approximate 7 cases per million. The risk is even lower in women over the age of 50 at .9 cases per million,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said in a news briefing the same day.
In the end, the potential benefits of the vaccine far outweighed its risks.
“In terms of benefits, we found that for every 1 million doses of this vaccine, the J&J vaccine could prevent over 650 hospitalizations and 12 deaths among women ages 18-49,” Dr. Walensky said. The potential benefits to women over 50 were even greater: It could prevent 4,700 hospitalizations and 650 deaths.
“In the end, this vaccine was shown to be safe and effective for the vast majority of people,” Dr. Walensky said.
The recommendation to continue the vaccine’s rollout came barely 2 hours after a CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to recommend the pause be lifted. The vote was 10-4 with one abstention.
The decision also includes instructions for the warning directed at women under 50 who have an increased risk of a rare but serious blood clot disorder called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS).
As of April 21, 15 cases of TTS, all in women and 13 of them in women under 50, have been confirmed among 7.98 million doses of the J&J vaccine administered in the United States. Three women have died.
The FDA and CDC recommended the pause on April 13 after reports that 6 women developed a blood clotting disorder 6 to 13 days after they received the J&J vaccine.
William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and a non-voting ACIP member, said in an interview the panel made the right recommendation.
He applauded both the decision to restart the vaccine and the updated warning information that “will explain [TTS] more fully to people, particularly women, who are coming to be vaccinated.”
As to women in the risk group needing to have a choice of vaccines, Dr. Schaffner said that will be addressed differently across the country.
“Every provider will not have alternative vaccines in their location so there will be many different ways to do this. You may have to get this information and select which site you’re going to depending on which vaccine is available if this matter is important to you,” he noted.
ACIP made the decision after a 6-hour emergency meeting to hear evidence on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine's protective benefits against COVID-19 vs. risk of TTS.
In the CDC-FDA press briefing, Dr. Walensky pointed out that over the past few days, as regulators have reviewed the rare events, newly identified patients had been treated appropriately, without the use of heparin, which is not advised for treating TTS.
As a result, regulators felt as if their messages had gotten out to doctors who now knew how to take special precautions when treating patients with the disorder.
She said the Johnson & Johnson shot remained an important option because it was convenient to give and easier to store than the other vaccines currently authorized in the United States.
Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the agency had already added information describing the risk of the rare clotting disorder to its fact sheets for patients and doctors.
Janet Woodcock, MD, acting commissioner of the FDA, said vaccination centers could resume giving the “one and done” shots as early as April 24.
This article was updated April 24, 2021, and first appeared on WebMD.com.
Use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should resume in the United States for all adults, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention said April 23, although health care providers should warn patients of the risk of developing the rare and serious blood clots that caused the agencies to pause the vaccine’s distribution earlier this month.
“What we are seeing is the overall rate of events was 1.9 cases per million people. In women 18 to 29 years there was an approximate 7 cases per million. The risk is even lower in women over the age of 50 at .9 cases per million,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said in a news briefing the same day.
In the end, the potential benefits of the vaccine far outweighed its risks.
“In terms of benefits, we found that for every 1 million doses of this vaccine, the J&J vaccine could prevent over 650 hospitalizations and 12 deaths among women ages 18-49,” Dr. Walensky said. The potential benefits to women over 50 were even greater: It could prevent 4,700 hospitalizations and 650 deaths.
“In the end, this vaccine was shown to be safe and effective for the vast majority of people,” Dr. Walensky said.
The recommendation to continue the vaccine’s rollout came barely 2 hours after a CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to recommend the pause be lifted. The vote was 10-4 with one abstention.
The decision also includes instructions for the warning directed at women under 50 who have an increased risk of a rare but serious blood clot disorder called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS).
As of April 21, 15 cases of TTS, all in women and 13 of them in women under 50, have been confirmed among 7.98 million doses of the J&J vaccine administered in the United States. Three women have died.
The FDA and CDC recommended the pause on April 13 after reports that 6 women developed a blood clotting disorder 6 to 13 days after they received the J&J vaccine.
William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and a non-voting ACIP member, said in an interview the panel made the right recommendation.
He applauded both the decision to restart the vaccine and the updated warning information that “will explain [TTS] more fully to people, particularly women, who are coming to be vaccinated.”
As to women in the risk group needing to have a choice of vaccines, Dr. Schaffner said that will be addressed differently across the country.
“Every provider will not have alternative vaccines in their location so there will be many different ways to do this. You may have to get this information and select which site you’re going to depending on which vaccine is available if this matter is important to you,” he noted.
ACIP made the decision after a 6-hour emergency meeting to hear evidence on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine's protective benefits against COVID-19 vs. risk of TTS.
In the CDC-FDA press briefing, Dr. Walensky pointed out that over the past few days, as regulators have reviewed the rare events, newly identified patients had been treated appropriately, without the use of heparin, which is not advised for treating TTS.
As a result, regulators felt as if their messages had gotten out to doctors who now knew how to take special precautions when treating patients with the disorder.
She said the Johnson & Johnson shot remained an important option because it was convenient to give and easier to store than the other vaccines currently authorized in the United States.
Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the agency had already added information describing the risk of the rare clotting disorder to its fact sheets for patients and doctors.
Janet Woodcock, MD, acting commissioner of the FDA, said vaccination centers could resume giving the “one and done” shots as early as April 24.
This article was updated April 24, 2021, and first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA expands use of SLIT pollen allergy treatment to children
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new indication for ALK’s under-the-tongue immunotherapy tablet Ragwitek (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) to treat ragweed pollen–induced hay fever in children aged 5-17 years.
Ragwitek received FDA approval in 2014 to treat short ragweed pollen–induced hay fever, with or without allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, in adults aged 18-65 years.
The approval for Ragwitek comes with a boxed warning regarding a risk for life-threatening allergic reactions associated with the immunotherapy treatment, including anaphylaxis and severe laryngopharyngeal restriction. The package insert specifies that physicians should prescribe autoinjectable epinephrine with the drug.
“Ragwitek tablets provide a new immunotherapy treatment option for children and adolescents with seasonal ragweed allergies which often causes uncomfortable nasal symptoms and red, itchy eyes during the late summer and early fall,” David I. Bernstein, MD, University of Cincinnati, Bernstein Clinical Research, said in a company press release.
Short ragweed pollen is one of the most common weed allergies. Allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, affects 10%-30% of the population worldwide, according to the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology. In the United States, approximately 7.7% of adults and 7.2% of children were diagnosed with it annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The new indication was based partly on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in children with short ragweed–induced allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In the study, researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the treatment in 1,022 participants aged 5-17 years with a history of ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and sensitivity to ragweed over a 20- to 28-week treatment period.
Researchers found that Ragwitek improved symptoms in children and adolescents and decreased their use of symptom-relieving medication, compared with placebo.
Among children and adolescents aged 5-17 years, the most common adverse reactions reported were throat irritation/tickle (48.3% in the Ragwitek group vs. 17.7% in the placebo group), itching in the mouth (47.8% vs. 11.2%), itching in the ear (33.9% vs. 6.3%), mouth pain (18.9% vs. 4.5%), swelling of the lips (13.8% vs. 1.2%), nausea (11.5% vs. 3.3%), swelling of the tongue (11.3% vs. 0.8%), throat swelling (10.7% vs. 1.6%), and stomach pain (10.1% vs. 4.5%).
The FDA also recommends that Ragwitek not be prescribed to people with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma, those with a history of severe systemic allergic reactions, and those with a history of eosinophilic esophagitis. The immunotherapy treatment also may not be suitable for people who are unresponsive to epinephrine or inhaled bronchodilators.
In addition, the treatment is not approved for the immediate relief of allergic symptoms in children or adults. The once-daily treatment, which contains an extract from short ragweed pollen, should begin 12 weeks before the start of ragweed pollen season and continue throughout the season, according to the FDA.
Dr. Bernstein said that the under-the-tongue immunotherapy works by targeting the specific allergy trigger and reducing allergy symptoms by “stimulating the immune system.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new indication for ALK’s under-the-tongue immunotherapy tablet Ragwitek (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) to treat ragweed pollen–induced hay fever in children aged 5-17 years.
Ragwitek received FDA approval in 2014 to treat short ragweed pollen–induced hay fever, with or without allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, in adults aged 18-65 years.
The approval for Ragwitek comes with a boxed warning regarding a risk for life-threatening allergic reactions associated with the immunotherapy treatment, including anaphylaxis and severe laryngopharyngeal restriction. The package insert specifies that physicians should prescribe autoinjectable epinephrine with the drug.
“Ragwitek tablets provide a new immunotherapy treatment option for children and adolescents with seasonal ragweed allergies which often causes uncomfortable nasal symptoms and red, itchy eyes during the late summer and early fall,” David I. Bernstein, MD, University of Cincinnati, Bernstein Clinical Research, said in a company press release.
Short ragweed pollen is one of the most common weed allergies. Allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, affects 10%-30% of the population worldwide, according to the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology. In the United States, approximately 7.7% of adults and 7.2% of children were diagnosed with it annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The new indication was based partly on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in children with short ragweed–induced allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In the study, researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the treatment in 1,022 participants aged 5-17 years with a history of ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and sensitivity to ragweed over a 20- to 28-week treatment period.
Researchers found that Ragwitek improved symptoms in children and adolescents and decreased their use of symptom-relieving medication, compared with placebo.
Among children and adolescents aged 5-17 years, the most common adverse reactions reported were throat irritation/tickle (48.3% in the Ragwitek group vs. 17.7% in the placebo group), itching in the mouth (47.8% vs. 11.2%), itching in the ear (33.9% vs. 6.3%), mouth pain (18.9% vs. 4.5%), swelling of the lips (13.8% vs. 1.2%), nausea (11.5% vs. 3.3%), swelling of the tongue (11.3% vs. 0.8%), throat swelling (10.7% vs. 1.6%), and stomach pain (10.1% vs. 4.5%).
The FDA also recommends that Ragwitek not be prescribed to people with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma, those with a history of severe systemic allergic reactions, and those with a history of eosinophilic esophagitis. The immunotherapy treatment also may not be suitable for people who are unresponsive to epinephrine or inhaled bronchodilators.
In addition, the treatment is not approved for the immediate relief of allergic symptoms in children or adults. The once-daily treatment, which contains an extract from short ragweed pollen, should begin 12 weeks before the start of ragweed pollen season and continue throughout the season, according to the FDA.
Dr. Bernstein said that the under-the-tongue immunotherapy works by targeting the specific allergy trigger and reducing allergy symptoms by “stimulating the immune system.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new indication for ALK’s under-the-tongue immunotherapy tablet Ragwitek (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) to treat ragweed pollen–induced hay fever in children aged 5-17 years.
Ragwitek received FDA approval in 2014 to treat short ragweed pollen–induced hay fever, with or without allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, in adults aged 18-65 years.
The approval for Ragwitek comes with a boxed warning regarding a risk for life-threatening allergic reactions associated with the immunotherapy treatment, including anaphylaxis and severe laryngopharyngeal restriction. The package insert specifies that physicians should prescribe autoinjectable epinephrine with the drug.
“Ragwitek tablets provide a new immunotherapy treatment option for children and adolescents with seasonal ragweed allergies which often causes uncomfortable nasal symptoms and red, itchy eyes during the late summer and early fall,” David I. Bernstein, MD, University of Cincinnati, Bernstein Clinical Research, said in a company press release.
Short ragweed pollen is one of the most common weed allergies. Allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, affects 10%-30% of the population worldwide, according to the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology. In the United States, approximately 7.7% of adults and 7.2% of children were diagnosed with it annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The new indication was based partly on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in children with short ragweed–induced allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In the study, researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the treatment in 1,022 participants aged 5-17 years with a history of ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and sensitivity to ragweed over a 20- to 28-week treatment period.
Researchers found that Ragwitek improved symptoms in children and adolescents and decreased their use of symptom-relieving medication, compared with placebo.
Among children and adolescents aged 5-17 years, the most common adverse reactions reported were throat irritation/tickle (48.3% in the Ragwitek group vs. 17.7% in the placebo group), itching in the mouth (47.8% vs. 11.2%), itching in the ear (33.9% vs. 6.3%), mouth pain (18.9% vs. 4.5%), swelling of the lips (13.8% vs. 1.2%), nausea (11.5% vs. 3.3%), swelling of the tongue (11.3% vs. 0.8%), throat swelling (10.7% vs. 1.6%), and stomach pain (10.1% vs. 4.5%).
The FDA also recommends that Ragwitek not be prescribed to people with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma, those with a history of severe systemic allergic reactions, and those with a history of eosinophilic esophagitis. The immunotherapy treatment also may not be suitable for people who are unresponsive to epinephrine or inhaled bronchodilators.
In addition, the treatment is not approved for the immediate relief of allergic symptoms in children or adults. The once-daily treatment, which contains an extract from short ragweed pollen, should begin 12 weeks before the start of ragweed pollen season and continue throughout the season, according to the FDA.
Dr. Bernstein said that the under-the-tongue immunotherapy works by targeting the specific allergy trigger and reducing allergy symptoms by “stimulating the immune system.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves new immunotherapy for endometrial cancer
Use limited to patients with biomarker
Usage of the new checkpoint inhibitor is limited to patients who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Eligibility must also be determined by an FDA-approved test for the dMMR biomarker. Approximately 25%-30% of patients with advanced endometrial cancer have dMMR tumors, according to the FDA.
The approval is “evidence of the FDA’s progress in applying precision medicine to expand treatment options for patients with cancer,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
He explained that the immunotherapy was “specifically studied to target dMMR endometrial cancer and leverages scientific knowledge surrounding the mechanism of immunotherapy response.”
The new drug also addresses an unmet medical need, as there are limited therapeutic options in this setting following frontline standard treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.
The approval is based on safety and efficacy data from a single-arm, multicohort clinical trial. Of the 71 patients with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who received dostarlimab, 42.3% had a response. For 93% of that group, the response lasted 6 months or longer.
The drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently conducting additional, larger trials in more patients with dMMR endometrial tumors to verify and further describe clinical benefits.
Common side effects of dostarlimab include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and constipation. Like other checkpoint inhibitors, the new drug can cause immune-mediated side effects such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, and nephritis.
Dostarlimab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby.
The FDA approval comes a month after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for dostarlimab for use as monotherapy in this same patient group.
In the United States, dostarlimab received Priority Review designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation for this indication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Use limited to patients with biomarker
Use limited to patients with biomarker
Usage of the new checkpoint inhibitor is limited to patients who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Eligibility must also be determined by an FDA-approved test for the dMMR biomarker. Approximately 25%-30% of patients with advanced endometrial cancer have dMMR tumors, according to the FDA.
The approval is “evidence of the FDA’s progress in applying precision medicine to expand treatment options for patients with cancer,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
He explained that the immunotherapy was “specifically studied to target dMMR endometrial cancer and leverages scientific knowledge surrounding the mechanism of immunotherapy response.”
The new drug also addresses an unmet medical need, as there are limited therapeutic options in this setting following frontline standard treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.
The approval is based on safety and efficacy data from a single-arm, multicohort clinical trial. Of the 71 patients with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who received dostarlimab, 42.3% had a response. For 93% of that group, the response lasted 6 months or longer.
The drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently conducting additional, larger trials in more patients with dMMR endometrial tumors to verify and further describe clinical benefits.
Common side effects of dostarlimab include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and constipation. Like other checkpoint inhibitors, the new drug can cause immune-mediated side effects such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, and nephritis.
Dostarlimab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby.
The FDA approval comes a month after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for dostarlimab for use as monotherapy in this same patient group.
In the United States, dostarlimab received Priority Review designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation for this indication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Usage of the new checkpoint inhibitor is limited to patients who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Eligibility must also be determined by an FDA-approved test for the dMMR biomarker. Approximately 25%-30% of patients with advanced endometrial cancer have dMMR tumors, according to the FDA.
The approval is “evidence of the FDA’s progress in applying precision medicine to expand treatment options for patients with cancer,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
He explained that the immunotherapy was “specifically studied to target dMMR endometrial cancer and leverages scientific knowledge surrounding the mechanism of immunotherapy response.”
The new drug also addresses an unmet medical need, as there are limited therapeutic options in this setting following frontline standard treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.
The approval is based on safety and efficacy data from a single-arm, multicohort clinical trial. Of the 71 patients with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who received dostarlimab, 42.3% had a response. For 93% of that group, the response lasted 6 months or longer.
The drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently conducting additional, larger trials in more patients with dMMR endometrial tumors to verify and further describe clinical benefits.
Common side effects of dostarlimab include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and constipation. Like other checkpoint inhibitors, the new drug can cause immune-mediated side effects such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, and nephritis.
Dostarlimab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby.
The FDA approval comes a month after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for dostarlimab for use as monotherapy in this same patient group.
In the United States, dostarlimab received Priority Review designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation for this indication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves frontline immunotherapy for gastric cancers
This is the first immunotherapy approved for the frontline treatment of gastric cancers, the agency says in a press release.
The approval comes after nivolumab received Priority Review and Orphan Drug designations for this indication. There are approximately 28,000 new diagnoses of gastric cancer annually in the United States, and overall survival is generally poor with currently available therapy, points out the FDA.
“Today’s approval is the first treatment in more than a decade to show a survival benefit for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer who are being treated for the first time,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in an FDA press release.
Efficacy in the gastric cancer setting was demonstrated in the randomized, phase 3, open-label CheckMate 649 study of 1,518 untreated patients. Median survival was 13.8 months among those treated with nivolumab, compared with 11.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .0002).
Common side effects experienced by patients in the nivolumab group included peripheral neuropathy, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, constipation, and musculoskeletal pain.
Nivolumab is also approved for numerous other cancers. Other known adverse effects include immune-mediated inflammation of the lungs, colon, liver, endocrine glands, and kidneys.
“Patients should tell their health care providers if they have immune system problems, lung or breathing problems, liver problems, have had an organ transplant, or are pregnant or plan to become pregnant before starting treatment,” the FDA states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is the first immunotherapy approved for the frontline treatment of gastric cancers, the agency says in a press release.
The approval comes after nivolumab received Priority Review and Orphan Drug designations for this indication. There are approximately 28,000 new diagnoses of gastric cancer annually in the United States, and overall survival is generally poor with currently available therapy, points out the FDA.
“Today’s approval is the first treatment in more than a decade to show a survival benefit for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer who are being treated for the first time,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in an FDA press release.
Efficacy in the gastric cancer setting was demonstrated in the randomized, phase 3, open-label CheckMate 649 study of 1,518 untreated patients. Median survival was 13.8 months among those treated with nivolumab, compared with 11.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .0002).
Common side effects experienced by patients in the nivolumab group included peripheral neuropathy, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, constipation, and musculoskeletal pain.
Nivolumab is also approved for numerous other cancers. Other known adverse effects include immune-mediated inflammation of the lungs, colon, liver, endocrine glands, and kidneys.
“Patients should tell their health care providers if they have immune system problems, lung or breathing problems, liver problems, have had an organ transplant, or are pregnant or plan to become pregnant before starting treatment,” the FDA states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is the first immunotherapy approved for the frontline treatment of gastric cancers, the agency says in a press release.
The approval comes after nivolumab received Priority Review and Orphan Drug designations for this indication. There are approximately 28,000 new diagnoses of gastric cancer annually in the United States, and overall survival is generally poor with currently available therapy, points out the FDA.
“Today’s approval is the first treatment in more than a decade to show a survival benefit for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer who are being treated for the first time,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in an FDA press release.
Efficacy in the gastric cancer setting was demonstrated in the randomized, phase 3, open-label CheckMate 649 study of 1,518 untreated patients. Median survival was 13.8 months among those treated with nivolumab, compared with 11.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .0002).
Common side effects experienced by patients in the nivolumab group included peripheral neuropathy, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, constipation, and musculoskeletal pain.
Nivolumab is also approved for numerous other cancers. Other known adverse effects include immune-mediated inflammation of the lungs, colon, liver, endocrine glands, and kidneys.
“Patients should tell their health care providers if they have immune system problems, lung or breathing problems, liver problems, have had an organ transplant, or are pregnant or plan to become pregnant before starting treatment,” the FDA states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC panel: Pause of J&J COVID-19 vaccine to remain for now
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided there was not adequate information to change again recommend use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The committee’s decision comes the day after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that J&J injections be paused after reports of rare, but serious types of blood clots in six patients among the 6.8 million people who had received the J&J vaccine in the United States.
A member of the committee, Beth Bell, MD, said: “I do not want to be sending a message that there is some huge concern here on a different order of magnitude than any other vaccine safety signals that we evaluate. And I don’t want to send a message that there is something fundamentally wrong with the vaccine because that also I don’t agree with.”
At the end of the 4-hour meeting, ACIP members decided to call a meeting in 1 or 2 weeks and evaluate more safety data, specifically reports of people who have received the J&J vaccine in the past 2 weeks.
Some, however, pointed out that delaying a decision could have substantial consequences as well in terms of unused vaccine doses and public confidence.
Committee member Camiile Kotton, MD, described the pause as “devastating.”
“Putting this vaccine on pause for those of us that are frontline health care workers has really been devastating,” she said. “I agree in general that we don’t have enough data to make a decision at this time but we were planning on using this vaccine in the state of Massachusetts for people who were homebound and otherwise not able to get a vaccine. We were planning on using it for our vulnerable inpatient population often with many comorbidities and at high risk for disease but haven’t been able to get vaccinated otherwise.”
Pausing the one-and-done vaccine that doesn’t have the significant refrigeration requirements of the others “is a significant loss,” she said.
What is known, not known
Sara Oliver, MD, who leads the COVID-19 Vaccines ACIP Work Group, summarized what is known and unknown about the blood clots.
Among the six cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after the J&J shot, all were women aged 18-48 years and all developed the clots 6-13 days after receiving the vaccine.
No cases of these clots have been reported from either the Pfizer or Moderna shots, she noted.
In the United States, the two mRNA vaccine alternatives – the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines – are available “and based on current projections supply of both vaccines are expected to be relatively stable in the near future,” she said.
She said 14 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna are expected each week in the United States and J&J vaccines makes up less than 5% of vaccines administered in the country.
Approximately 13 million J&J doses are available to order or are already at administration sites, she said.
But much more is unknown, she said.
“There may be more cases identified in the coming days to weeks,” Dr. Oliver said, referring back to the average time from vaccination to symptom onset.
Scott Ratzan, MD, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives and executive director of Business Partners to CONVINCE (BP2C), a global network of employers that promotes COVID-19 vaccination among employees, suppliers, and customers, applauded ACIP’s delay on making a decision.
Dr. Ratzan, who watched the deliberations online, said in an interview the decision “shows an admirable abundance of caution in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.”
“Unfortunately,” he said, “the pause also worsens the existing and pervasive vaccine hesitancy issue.
“We need a rational strategy regarding who should or should not get the J&J/Janssen vaccine since these rare adverse events appear to affect a particular group of people, females aged 18-48. It is essential that we build vaccine confidence and retain the option of using this vaccine for people who are not in this risk group.”
He pointed out there are safety red flags with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.
“We should feel reassured about the process of ensuring vaccine safety as the FDA and CDC have quickly addressed risk and shared the data transparently of the J&J vaccine and taken appropriate action,” he said.
ACIP’s executive secretary, Amanda Cohn, MD, said the date for the next meeting would be set by April 16.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided there was not adequate information to change again recommend use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The committee’s decision comes the day after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that J&J injections be paused after reports of rare, but serious types of blood clots in six patients among the 6.8 million people who had received the J&J vaccine in the United States.
A member of the committee, Beth Bell, MD, said: “I do not want to be sending a message that there is some huge concern here on a different order of magnitude than any other vaccine safety signals that we evaluate. And I don’t want to send a message that there is something fundamentally wrong with the vaccine because that also I don’t agree with.”
At the end of the 4-hour meeting, ACIP members decided to call a meeting in 1 or 2 weeks and evaluate more safety data, specifically reports of people who have received the J&J vaccine in the past 2 weeks.
Some, however, pointed out that delaying a decision could have substantial consequences as well in terms of unused vaccine doses and public confidence.
Committee member Camiile Kotton, MD, described the pause as “devastating.”
“Putting this vaccine on pause for those of us that are frontline health care workers has really been devastating,” she said. “I agree in general that we don’t have enough data to make a decision at this time but we were planning on using this vaccine in the state of Massachusetts for people who were homebound and otherwise not able to get a vaccine. We were planning on using it for our vulnerable inpatient population often with many comorbidities and at high risk for disease but haven’t been able to get vaccinated otherwise.”
Pausing the one-and-done vaccine that doesn’t have the significant refrigeration requirements of the others “is a significant loss,” she said.
What is known, not known
Sara Oliver, MD, who leads the COVID-19 Vaccines ACIP Work Group, summarized what is known and unknown about the blood clots.
Among the six cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after the J&J shot, all were women aged 18-48 years and all developed the clots 6-13 days after receiving the vaccine.
No cases of these clots have been reported from either the Pfizer or Moderna shots, she noted.
In the United States, the two mRNA vaccine alternatives – the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines – are available “and based on current projections supply of both vaccines are expected to be relatively stable in the near future,” she said.
She said 14 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna are expected each week in the United States and J&J vaccines makes up less than 5% of vaccines administered in the country.
Approximately 13 million J&J doses are available to order or are already at administration sites, she said.
But much more is unknown, she said.
“There may be more cases identified in the coming days to weeks,” Dr. Oliver said, referring back to the average time from vaccination to symptom onset.
Scott Ratzan, MD, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives and executive director of Business Partners to CONVINCE (BP2C), a global network of employers that promotes COVID-19 vaccination among employees, suppliers, and customers, applauded ACIP’s delay on making a decision.
Dr. Ratzan, who watched the deliberations online, said in an interview the decision “shows an admirable abundance of caution in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.”
“Unfortunately,” he said, “the pause also worsens the existing and pervasive vaccine hesitancy issue.
“We need a rational strategy regarding who should or should not get the J&J/Janssen vaccine since these rare adverse events appear to affect a particular group of people, females aged 18-48. It is essential that we build vaccine confidence and retain the option of using this vaccine for people who are not in this risk group.”
He pointed out there are safety red flags with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.
“We should feel reassured about the process of ensuring vaccine safety as the FDA and CDC have quickly addressed risk and shared the data transparently of the J&J vaccine and taken appropriate action,” he said.
ACIP’s executive secretary, Amanda Cohn, MD, said the date for the next meeting would be set by April 16.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided there was not adequate information to change again recommend use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The committee’s decision comes the day after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that J&J injections be paused after reports of rare, but serious types of blood clots in six patients among the 6.8 million people who had received the J&J vaccine in the United States.
A member of the committee, Beth Bell, MD, said: “I do not want to be sending a message that there is some huge concern here on a different order of magnitude than any other vaccine safety signals that we evaluate. And I don’t want to send a message that there is something fundamentally wrong with the vaccine because that also I don’t agree with.”
At the end of the 4-hour meeting, ACIP members decided to call a meeting in 1 or 2 weeks and evaluate more safety data, specifically reports of people who have received the J&J vaccine in the past 2 weeks.
Some, however, pointed out that delaying a decision could have substantial consequences as well in terms of unused vaccine doses and public confidence.
Committee member Camiile Kotton, MD, described the pause as “devastating.”
“Putting this vaccine on pause for those of us that are frontline health care workers has really been devastating,” she said. “I agree in general that we don’t have enough data to make a decision at this time but we were planning on using this vaccine in the state of Massachusetts for people who were homebound and otherwise not able to get a vaccine. We were planning on using it for our vulnerable inpatient population often with many comorbidities and at high risk for disease but haven’t been able to get vaccinated otherwise.”
Pausing the one-and-done vaccine that doesn’t have the significant refrigeration requirements of the others “is a significant loss,” she said.
What is known, not known
Sara Oliver, MD, who leads the COVID-19 Vaccines ACIP Work Group, summarized what is known and unknown about the blood clots.
Among the six cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after the J&J shot, all were women aged 18-48 years and all developed the clots 6-13 days after receiving the vaccine.
No cases of these clots have been reported from either the Pfizer or Moderna shots, she noted.
In the United States, the two mRNA vaccine alternatives – the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines – are available “and based on current projections supply of both vaccines are expected to be relatively stable in the near future,” she said.
She said 14 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna are expected each week in the United States and J&J vaccines makes up less than 5% of vaccines administered in the country.
Approximately 13 million J&J doses are available to order or are already at administration sites, she said.
But much more is unknown, she said.
“There may be more cases identified in the coming days to weeks,” Dr. Oliver said, referring back to the average time from vaccination to symptom onset.
Scott Ratzan, MD, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives and executive director of Business Partners to CONVINCE (BP2C), a global network of employers that promotes COVID-19 vaccination among employees, suppliers, and customers, applauded ACIP’s delay on making a decision.
Dr. Ratzan, who watched the deliberations online, said in an interview the decision “shows an admirable abundance of caution in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.”
“Unfortunately,” he said, “the pause also worsens the existing and pervasive vaccine hesitancy issue.
“We need a rational strategy regarding who should or should not get the J&J/Janssen vaccine since these rare adverse events appear to affect a particular group of people, females aged 18-48. It is essential that we build vaccine confidence and retain the option of using this vaccine for people who are not in this risk group.”
He pointed out there are safety red flags with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.
“We should feel reassured about the process of ensuring vaccine safety as the FDA and CDC have quickly addressed risk and shared the data transparently of the J&J vaccine and taken appropriate action,” he said.
ACIP’s executive secretary, Amanda Cohn, MD, said the date for the next meeting would be set by April 16.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA approves first AI device to detect colon lesions
The GI Genius (Cosmo Artificial Intelligence) identifies areas of the colon where a colorectal polyp or tumor might be located. Clinicians then follow up with a closer examination and possible treatment.
“With the FDA’s authorization of this device today, clinicians now have a tool that could help improve their ability to detect gastrointestinal lesions they may have missed otherwise,” said Courtney H. Lias, PhD, acting director of the FDA’s gastrorenal, ob.gyn., general hospital, and urology devices office, in a media release.
The GI Genius consists of both hardware and software designed to work with an endoscope. It uses machine learning to recognize possible polyps during a colonoscopy. It marks these areas with green squares on the video generated by the endoscope’s camera and emits a short, low-volume sound. Clinicians decide if a lesion is truly present and whether to sample or remove such a lesion.
The device does not diagnose the lesions or recommend treatments and is not intended to take the place of laboratory sampling
The FDA based its approval on a trial in which 700 people aged 40-80 years underwent colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening, surveillance, follow-up from positive results of a fecal occult blood test, or gastrointestinal symptoms of possible colon cancer.
Of these participants, 263 were being screened or surveilled every 3 years or more. The researchers randomly divided patients into a group of 136 who underwent white-light standard colonoscopy with the GI Genius, and 127 who underwent white-light standard colonoscopy without the GI Genius.
Using the GI Genius, clinicians identified adenomas or carcinomas that were later confirmed through lab results in 55.1% of patients. Without the GI Genius, the clinicians identified such lesions in 42.0% of patients.
The patients examined with the GI Genius received more biopsies, including slightly more that were not adenomas. But the biopsies did not lead to any adverse events such as perforations, infections, bleeding, or further biopsies.
More information on the GI Genius is available on the FDA website.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
The GI Genius (Cosmo Artificial Intelligence) identifies areas of the colon where a colorectal polyp or tumor might be located. Clinicians then follow up with a closer examination and possible treatment.
“With the FDA’s authorization of this device today, clinicians now have a tool that could help improve their ability to detect gastrointestinal lesions they may have missed otherwise,” said Courtney H. Lias, PhD, acting director of the FDA’s gastrorenal, ob.gyn., general hospital, and urology devices office, in a media release.
The GI Genius consists of both hardware and software designed to work with an endoscope. It uses machine learning to recognize possible polyps during a colonoscopy. It marks these areas with green squares on the video generated by the endoscope’s camera and emits a short, low-volume sound. Clinicians decide if a lesion is truly present and whether to sample or remove such a lesion.
The device does not diagnose the lesions or recommend treatments and is not intended to take the place of laboratory sampling
The FDA based its approval on a trial in which 700 people aged 40-80 years underwent colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening, surveillance, follow-up from positive results of a fecal occult blood test, or gastrointestinal symptoms of possible colon cancer.
Of these participants, 263 were being screened or surveilled every 3 years or more. The researchers randomly divided patients into a group of 136 who underwent white-light standard colonoscopy with the GI Genius, and 127 who underwent white-light standard colonoscopy without the GI Genius.
Using the GI Genius, clinicians identified adenomas or carcinomas that were later confirmed through lab results in 55.1% of patients. Without the GI Genius, the clinicians identified such lesions in 42.0% of patients.
The patients examined with the GI Genius received more biopsies, including slightly more that were not adenomas. But the biopsies did not lead to any adverse events such as perforations, infections, bleeding, or further biopsies.
More information on the GI Genius is available on the FDA website.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
The GI Genius (Cosmo Artificial Intelligence) identifies areas of the colon where a colorectal polyp or tumor might be located. Clinicians then follow up with a closer examination and possible treatment.
“With the FDA’s authorization of this device today, clinicians now have a tool that could help improve their ability to detect gastrointestinal lesions they may have missed otherwise,” said Courtney H. Lias, PhD, acting director of the FDA’s gastrorenal, ob.gyn., general hospital, and urology devices office, in a media release.
The GI Genius consists of both hardware and software designed to work with an endoscope. It uses machine learning to recognize possible polyps during a colonoscopy. It marks these areas with green squares on the video generated by the endoscope’s camera and emits a short, low-volume sound. Clinicians decide if a lesion is truly present and whether to sample or remove such a lesion.
The device does not diagnose the lesions or recommend treatments and is not intended to take the place of laboratory sampling
The FDA based its approval on a trial in which 700 people aged 40-80 years underwent colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening, surveillance, follow-up from positive results of a fecal occult blood test, or gastrointestinal symptoms of possible colon cancer.
Of these participants, 263 were being screened or surveilled every 3 years or more. The researchers randomly divided patients into a group of 136 who underwent white-light standard colonoscopy with the GI Genius, and 127 who underwent white-light standard colonoscopy without the GI Genius.
Using the GI Genius, clinicians identified adenomas or carcinomas that were later confirmed through lab results in 55.1% of patients. Without the GI Genius, the clinicians identified such lesions in 42.0% of patients.
The patients examined with the GI Genius received more biopsies, including slightly more that were not adenomas. But the biopsies did not lead to any adverse events such as perforations, infections, bleeding, or further biopsies.
More information on the GI Genius is available on the FDA website.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
List of COVID-19 high-risk comorbidities expanded
The list of medical according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC’s latest list consists of 17 conditions or groups of related conditions that may increase patients’ risk of developing severe outcomes of COVID-19, the CDC said on a web page intended for the general public.
On a separate page, the CDC defines severe outcomes “as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.”
Asthma is included in the newly expanded list with other chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis; the list’s heart disease entry covers coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and hypertension, the CDC said.
The list of medical according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC’s latest list consists of 17 conditions or groups of related conditions that may increase patients’ risk of developing severe outcomes of COVID-19, the CDC said on a web page intended for the general public.
On a separate page, the CDC defines severe outcomes “as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.”
Asthma is included in the newly expanded list with other chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis; the list’s heart disease entry covers coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and hypertension, the CDC said.
The list of medical according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC’s latest list consists of 17 conditions or groups of related conditions that may increase patients’ risk of developing severe outcomes of COVID-19, the CDC said on a web page intended for the general public.
On a separate page, the CDC defines severe outcomes “as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.”
Asthma is included in the newly expanded list with other chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis; the list’s heart disease entry covers coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and hypertension, the CDC said.
FDA approves new ready-to-inject glucagon product
The Food and Drug Administration has approved dasiglucagon (Zegalogue 0.6 mg/0.6 mL, Zealand Pharma) autoinjector and prefilled syringe for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes aged 6 years and older.
The product has a shelf-life of 36 months at refrigerated temperatures and is stable for up to 12 months at room temperature.
“This approval will help enable appropriate children and adults with diabetes to be able to address sudden and severe hypoglycemia, which can quickly progress from a mild event to an emergency,” Jeremy Pettus, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a company statement.
The approval marks the latest step in the development of newer glucagon formulations that are easier to use in hypoglycemic emergencies than the traditional formulation that requires several steps for reconstitution.
The first intranasal glucagon (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly) was approved in the United States in July 2019 for people with diabetes age 4 years and older.
In September 2019, the FDA approved another prefilled glucagon rescue pen (Gvoke HypoPen, Xeris Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in adult and pediatric patients age 2 years and older with diabetes.
Dasiglucagon is currently in phase 3 trials as a subcutaneous infusion for treating congenital hyperinsulinemia, and in phase 2 trials as part of a bihormonal artificial pancreas pump system.
The FDA approval was based on results from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of dasiglucagon in children age 6-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes.
The primary endpoint was time to achieving an increase in blood glucose of 20 mg/dL or greater from time of administration without additional intervention within 45 minutes. That endpoint was achieved in all three studies, with a median time to blood glucose recovery of 10 minutes overall, with 99% of adults recovering within 15 minutes.
The most common adverse events reported in 2% or more of study participants were nausea, vomiting, headache, and injection-site pain in both children and adults. Diarrhea was also reported in adults.
Full launch is expected in late June 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved dasiglucagon (Zegalogue 0.6 mg/0.6 mL, Zealand Pharma) autoinjector and prefilled syringe for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes aged 6 years and older.
The product has a shelf-life of 36 months at refrigerated temperatures and is stable for up to 12 months at room temperature.
“This approval will help enable appropriate children and adults with diabetes to be able to address sudden and severe hypoglycemia, which can quickly progress from a mild event to an emergency,” Jeremy Pettus, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a company statement.
The approval marks the latest step in the development of newer glucagon formulations that are easier to use in hypoglycemic emergencies than the traditional formulation that requires several steps for reconstitution.
The first intranasal glucagon (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly) was approved in the United States in July 2019 for people with diabetes age 4 years and older.
In September 2019, the FDA approved another prefilled glucagon rescue pen (Gvoke HypoPen, Xeris Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in adult and pediatric patients age 2 years and older with diabetes.
Dasiglucagon is currently in phase 3 trials as a subcutaneous infusion for treating congenital hyperinsulinemia, and in phase 2 trials as part of a bihormonal artificial pancreas pump system.
The FDA approval was based on results from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of dasiglucagon in children age 6-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes.
The primary endpoint was time to achieving an increase in blood glucose of 20 mg/dL or greater from time of administration without additional intervention within 45 minutes. That endpoint was achieved in all three studies, with a median time to blood glucose recovery of 10 minutes overall, with 99% of adults recovering within 15 minutes.
The most common adverse events reported in 2% or more of study participants were nausea, vomiting, headache, and injection-site pain in both children and adults. Diarrhea was also reported in adults.
Full launch is expected in late June 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved dasiglucagon (Zegalogue 0.6 mg/0.6 mL, Zealand Pharma) autoinjector and prefilled syringe for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes aged 6 years and older.
The product has a shelf-life of 36 months at refrigerated temperatures and is stable for up to 12 months at room temperature.
“This approval will help enable appropriate children and adults with diabetes to be able to address sudden and severe hypoglycemia, which can quickly progress from a mild event to an emergency,” Jeremy Pettus, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a company statement.
The approval marks the latest step in the development of newer glucagon formulations that are easier to use in hypoglycemic emergencies than the traditional formulation that requires several steps for reconstitution.
The first intranasal glucagon (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly) was approved in the United States in July 2019 for people with diabetes age 4 years and older.
In September 2019, the FDA approved another prefilled glucagon rescue pen (Gvoke HypoPen, Xeris Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in adult and pediatric patients age 2 years and older with diabetes.
Dasiglucagon is currently in phase 3 trials as a subcutaneous infusion for treating congenital hyperinsulinemia, and in phase 2 trials as part of a bihormonal artificial pancreas pump system.
The FDA approval was based on results from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of dasiglucagon in children age 6-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes.
The primary endpoint was time to achieving an increase in blood glucose of 20 mg/dL or greater from time of administration without additional intervention within 45 minutes. That endpoint was achieved in all three studies, with a median time to blood glucose recovery of 10 minutes overall, with 99% of adults recovering within 15 minutes.
The most common adverse events reported in 2% or more of study participants were nausea, vomiting, headache, and injection-site pain in both children and adults. Diarrhea was also reported in adults.
Full launch is expected in late June 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.