User login
Systemic sclerosis patients share their perspectives and needs in treatment trials
Patients with systemic sclerosis have variable disease progression but often experience debilitating fatigue, pain, and digestive issues – and they’re extremely concerned about progressive organ damage, according to those who spoke at and provided input at a public meeting on patient-focused drug development for the disease.
The virtual meeting was part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, which began in 2012 and aims to provide a systematic way for patients’ experiences, needs, and priorities to be “captured and meaningfully incorporated” into drug development and evaluation.
Patients rate their most impactful symptoms
Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, a rheumatologist who directs a scleroderma research program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, attended the meeting after giving an opening presentation on the disease to FDA officials, patients, and other participants. In a later interview, he said that patients’ ratings of their most impactful symptoms was especially striking.
Raynaud’s phenomenon, digestive symptoms, and fatigue were the top three answers to a poll question that asked patients what symptom had the most significant impact on daily life, he noted, “and none of these are being [strongly] addressed right now [in clinical trials] apart from Raynaud’s phenomenon, for which there are some trials ongoing.”
He and other researchers are “struggling with what outcomes measures to use [in their studies],” said Dr. Khanna, the Frederick G.L. Huetwell Professor of Rheumatology at the University. “My takeaway from the meeting as a clinical trialist is that we should be paying close attention to the symptoms that patients tell us are the most important. We should be including these in our trial designs as secondary endpoints, if not primary endpoints. We have not done that [thus far], really.”
Approximately 200,000 patients in the United States have scleroderma, and approximately 75,000-80,000 of these patients have systemic scleroderma, or systemic sclerosis, Dr. Khanna said in his opening presentation. Each year, he estimates, about 6,000 new diagnoses of systemic sclerosis are made.
More than 200 people – patients, FDA officials, and others – participated in the PFDD meeting. Patients participated in one of two panels – one focused on health effects and daily impacts, and the other on treatments – or submitted input electronically. All were invited to answer poll questions.
Raj Nair, MD, one of eight FDA leaders attending the meeting, noted in closing remarks that the pain experienced by patients with systemic sclerosis includes severe pain from Raynaud’s phenomenon and pain caused by digital ulcers and by calcinosis. “We heard about how paralyzing the pain from calcinosis is, and that there are very few options for alleviating this pain,” said Dr. Nair, of the division of rheumatology and transplant medicine.
Another takeaway, he said, is that the “fatigue can be severe and debilitating, leading to days where it is impossible to get out of bed,” and that digestive symptoms can also be severe. “Reflux,” he noted, “requires significant medical intervention.”
Patients describe their experiences
Rosemary Lyons, diagnosed with scleroderma 35 years ago, explained that while her skin is no longer hardened, she is overly sensitive to fabrics and skin care products and has difficulty with sleeping and eating. She moved away from family in the Northeast to live in the South where the climate is warmer, but even on a 90-degree night she needs a blanket and two comforters to curb the cold and attempt to sleep.
Impaired gastrointestinal motility has made food her “biggest problem” for the past 10 years, and because of GI symptoms, she can eat only one meal a day. She also experiences fainting, brain fog, and severe fatigue. On a good day, Ms. Lyons noted, she sometimes opts to do some house chores “knowing that I’ll have 1-3 days of recovery.”
Another patient, Amy Harding, said that 22 years after her scleroderma diagnosis, “the calcinosis I get in my fingers, elbows, toes, and ears tops all the prior symptoms.” The skin tightening and digital ulcers that she experienced in the first 10 years have tapered off, and while Raynaud’s symptoms and heartburn have worsened, they are at least partly manageable with medications, unlike the pain from calcinosis.
Treating symptoms vs. disease may be key in risk-benefit analysis
In questions after patient presentations, FDA officials probed for more perspective on issues such as how fatigue should be assessed, the differences between fatigue and brain fog, the impact of calcinosis on functioning, and how much risk patients would be willing to assume from treatments that have side effects and that may or may not modulate the disease and slow disease progression.
Most patients said in response to an FDA poll question that they definitely (almost 40%) or possibly (almost 50%) would be willing to try a hypothetical new self-injectable medication if it were shown to reduce their most impactful symptoms but had side effects.
“I think what [we’ve been hearing] today is that whether we’re working on the symptoms or the disease itself is [the key]” to patients’ risk-benefit analysis, said meeting moderator Capt. Robyn Bent, RN, MS, of the U.S. Public Health Service, and director of the PFDD.
Anita Devine, diagnosed 13 years ago with systemic sclerosis, was one of several panel members who said she would accept more bothersome treatment side effects and risks “if the gain was control of disease progression and overall quality of life ... and organ preservation.” Ms. Devine, who has needed kidney dialysis and multiple hand surgeries, noted that she previously took anti-neoplastic and anti-inflammatory agents “to try to stem the course of my disease, but unfortunately the disease did not abate.”
Treatments for systemic sclerosis include vasodilators, immunosuppressive medications, antifibrotic therapies, and stem cell transplants, Dr. Khanna said in his opening remarks.
Trials of drugs for scleroderma have focused on early disease that may be amenable to treatment, with the exception of trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension, which affects some patients with systemic sclerosis. There are multiple FDA-approved drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension and more trials are underway.
Outcomes such as pain and fatigue are included in many of the trials currently underway, but they tend to be lower-level secondary outcomes measures that cannot be incorporated into drug labeling or are more “exploratory in nature,” Dr. Khanna said in the interview.
Dr. Khanna disclosed that he is the chief medical officer (an equity position) for CiVi Biopharma/Eicos Sciences Inc., which is developing a drug for Raynaud’s, and serves as a consultant and grant recipient for numerous companies that make or are developing drugs for systemic sclerosis.
The FDA will accept patient comments until Dec. 15, 2020, at which time comments will be compiled into a summary report, Ms. Bent said.
Patients with systemic sclerosis have variable disease progression but often experience debilitating fatigue, pain, and digestive issues – and they’re extremely concerned about progressive organ damage, according to those who spoke at and provided input at a public meeting on patient-focused drug development for the disease.
The virtual meeting was part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, which began in 2012 and aims to provide a systematic way for patients’ experiences, needs, and priorities to be “captured and meaningfully incorporated” into drug development and evaluation.
Patients rate their most impactful symptoms
Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, a rheumatologist who directs a scleroderma research program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, attended the meeting after giving an opening presentation on the disease to FDA officials, patients, and other participants. In a later interview, he said that patients’ ratings of their most impactful symptoms was especially striking.
Raynaud’s phenomenon, digestive symptoms, and fatigue were the top three answers to a poll question that asked patients what symptom had the most significant impact on daily life, he noted, “and none of these are being [strongly] addressed right now [in clinical trials] apart from Raynaud’s phenomenon, for which there are some trials ongoing.”
He and other researchers are “struggling with what outcomes measures to use [in their studies],” said Dr. Khanna, the Frederick G.L. Huetwell Professor of Rheumatology at the University. “My takeaway from the meeting as a clinical trialist is that we should be paying close attention to the symptoms that patients tell us are the most important. We should be including these in our trial designs as secondary endpoints, if not primary endpoints. We have not done that [thus far], really.”
Approximately 200,000 patients in the United States have scleroderma, and approximately 75,000-80,000 of these patients have systemic scleroderma, or systemic sclerosis, Dr. Khanna said in his opening presentation. Each year, he estimates, about 6,000 new diagnoses of systemic sclerosis are made.
More than 200 people – patients, FDA officials, and others – participated in the PFDD meeting. Patients participated in one of two panels – one focused on health effects and daily impacts, and the other on treatments – or submitted input electronically. All were invited to answer poll questions.
Raj Nair, MD, one of eight FDA leaders attending the meeting, noted in closing remarks that the pain experienced by patients with systemic sclerosis includes severe pain from Raynaud’s phenomenon and pain caused by digital ulcers and by calcinosis. “We heard about how paralyzing the pain from calcinosis is, and that there are very few options for alleviating this pain,” said Dr. Nair, of the division of rheumatology and transplant medicine.
Another takeaway, he said, is that the “fatigue can be severe and debilitating, leading to days where it is impossible to get out of bed,” and that digestive symptoms can also be severe. “Reflux,” he noted, “requires significant medical intervention.”
Patients describe their experiences
Rosemary Lyons, diagnosed with scleroderma 35 years ago, explained that while her skin is no longer hardened, she is overly sensitive to fabrics and skin care products and has difficulty with sleeping and eating. She moved away from family in the Northeast to live in the South where the climate is warmer, but even on a 90-degree night she needs a blanket and two comforters to curb the cold and attempt to sleep.
Impaired gastrointestinal motility has made food her “biggest problem” for the past 10 years, and because of GI symptoms, she can eat only one meal a day. She also experiences fainting, brain fog, and severe fatigue. On a good day, Ms. Lyons noted, she sometimes opts to do some house chores “knowing that I’ll have 1-3 days of recovery.”
Another patient, Amy Harding, said that 22 years after her scleroderma diagnosis, “the calcinosis I get in my fingers, elbows, toes, and ears tops all the prior symptoms.” The skin tightening and digital ulcers that she experienced in the first 10 years have tapered off, and while Raynaud’s symptoms and heartburn have worsened, they are at least partly manageable with medications, unlike the pain from calcinosis.
Treating symptoms vs. disease may be key in risk-benefit analysis
In questions after patient presentations, FDA officials probed for more perspective on issues such as how fatigue should be assessed, the differences between fatigue and brain fog, the impact of calcinosis on functioning, and how much risk patients would be willing to assume from treatments that have side effects and that may or may not modulate the disease and slow disease progression.
Most patients said in response to an FDA poll question that they definitely (almost 40%) or possibly (almost 50%) would be willing to try a hypothetical new self-injectable medication if it were shown to reduce their most impactful symptoms but had side effects.
“I think what [we’ve been hearing] today is that whether we’re working on the symptoms or the disease itself is [the key]” to patients’ risk-benefit analysis, said meeting moderator Capt. Robyn Bent, RN, MS, of the U.S. Public Health Service, and director of the PFDD.
Anita Devine, diagnosed 13 years ago with systemic sclerosis, was one of several panel members who said she would accept more bothersome treatment side effects and risks “if the gain was control of disease progression and overall quality of life ... and organ preservation.” Ms. Devine, who has needed kidney dialysis and multiple hand surgeries, noted that she previously took anti-neoplastic and anti-inflammatory agents “to try to stem the course of my disease, but unfortunately the disease did not abate.”
Treatments for systemic sclerosis include vasodilators, immunosuppressive medications, antifibrotic therapies, and stem cell transplants, Dr. Khanna said in his opening remarks.
Trials of drugs for scleroderma have focused on early disease that may be amenable to treatment, with the exception of trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension, which affects some patients with systemic sclerosis. There are multiple FDA-approved drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension and more trials are underway.
Outcomes such as pain and fatigue are included in many of the trials currently underway, but they tend to be lower-level secondary outcomes measures that cannot be incorporated into drug labeling or are more “exploratory in nature,” Dr. Khanna said in the interview.
Dr. Khanna disclosed that he is the chief medical officer (an equity position) for CiVi Biopharma/Eicos Sciences Inc., which is developing a drug for Raynaud’s, and serves as a consultant and grant recipient for numerous companies that make or are developing drugs for systemic sclerosis.
The FDA will accept patient comments until Dec. 15, 2020, at which time comments will be compiled into a summary report, Ms. Bent said.
Patients with systemic sclerosis have variable disease progression but often experience debilitating fatigue, pain, and digestive issues – and they’re extremely concerned about progressive organ damage, according to those who spoke at and provided input at a public meeting on patient-focused drug development for the disease.
The virtual meeting was part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, which began in 2012 and aims to provide a systematic way for patients’ experiences, needs, and priorities to be “captured and meaningfully incorporated” into drug development and evaluation.
Patients rate their most impactful symptoms
Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, a rheumatologist who directs a scleroderma research program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, attended the meeting after giving an opening presentation on the disease to FDA officials, patients, and other participants. In a later interview, he said that patients’ ratings of their most impactful symptoms was especially striking.
Raynaud’s phenomenon, digestive symptoms, and fatigue were the top three answers to a poll question that asked patients what symptom had the most significant impact on daily life, he noted, “and none of these are being [strongly] addressed right now [in clinical trials] apart from Raynaud’s phenomenon, for which there are some trials ongoing.”
He and other researchers are “struggling with what outcomes measures to use [in their studies],” said Dr. Khanna, the Frederick G.L. Huetwell Professor of Rheumatology at the University. “My takeaway from the meeting as a clinical trialist is that we should be paying close attention to the symptoms that patients tell us are the most important. We should be including these in our trial designs as secondary endpoints, if not primary endpoints. We have not done that [thus far], really.”
Approximately 200,000 patients in the United States have scleroderma, and approximately 75,000-80,000 of these patients have systemic scleroderma, or systemic sclerosis, Dr. Khanna said in his opening presentation. Each year, he estimates, about 6,000 new diagnoses of systemic sclerosis are made.
More than 200 people – patients, FDA officials, and others – participated in the PFDD meeting. Patients participated in one of two panels – one focused on health effects and daily impacts, and the other on treatments – or submitted input electronically. All were invited to answer poll questions.
Raj Nair, MD, one of eight FDA leaders attending the meeting, noted in closing remarks that the pain experienced by patients with systemic sclerosis includes severe pain from Raynaud’s phenomenon and pain caused by digital ulcers and by calcinosis. “We heard about how paralyzing the pain from calcinosis is, and that there are very few options for alleviating this pain,” said Dr. Nair, of the division of rheumatology and transplant medicine.
Another takeaway, he said, is that the “fatigue can be severe and debilitating, leading to days where it is impossible to get out of bed,” and that digestive symptoms can also be severe. “Reflux,” he noted, “requires significant medical intervention.”
Patients describe their experiences
Rosemary Lyons, diagnosed with scleroderma 35 years ago, explained that while her skin is no longer hardened, she is overly sensitive to fabrics and skin care products and has difficulty with sleeping and eating. She moved away from family in the Northeast to live in the South where the climate is warmer, but even on a 90-degree night she needs a blanket and two comforters to curb the cold and attempt to sleep.
Impaired gastrointestinal motility has made food her “biggest problem” for the past 10 years, and because of GI symptoms, she can eat only one meal a day. She also experiences fainting, brain fog, and severe fatigue. On a good day, Ms. Lyons noted, she sometimes opts to do some house chores “knowing that I’ll have 1-3 days of recovery.”
Another patient, Amy Harding, said that 22 years after her scleroderma diagnosis, “the calcinosis I get in my fingers, elbows, toes, and ears tops all the prior symptoms.” The skin tightening and digital ulcers that she experienced in the first 10 years have tapered off, and while Raynaud’s symptoms and heartburn have worsened, they are at least partly manageable with medications, unlike the pain from calcinosis.
Treating symptoms vs. disease may be key in risk-benefit analysis
In questions after patient presentations, FDA officials probed for more perspective on issues such as how fatigue should be assessed, the differences between fatigue and brain fog, the impact of calcinosis on functioning, and how much risk patients would be willing to assume from treatments that have side effects and that may or may not modulate the disease and slow disease progression.
Most patients said in response to an FDA poll question that they definitely (almost 40%) or possibly (almost 50%) would be willing to try a hypothetical new self-injectable medication if it were shown to reduce their most impactful symptoms but had side effects.
“I think what [we’ve been hearing] today is that whether we’re working on the symptoms or the disease itself is [the key]” to patients’ risk-benefit analysis, said meeting moderator Capt. Robyn Bent, RN, MS, of the U.S. Public Health Service, and director of the PFDD.
Anita Devine, diagnosed 13 years ago with systemic sclerosis, was one of several panel members who said she would accept more bothersome treatment side effects and risks “if the gain was control of disease progression and overall quality of life ... and organ preservation.” Ms. Devine, who has needed kidney dialysis and multiple hand surgeries, noted that she previously took anti-neoplastic and anti-inflammatory agents “to try to stem the course of my disease, but unfortunately the disease did not abate.”
Treatments for systemic sclerosis include vasodilators, immunosuppressive medications, antifibrotic therapies, and stem cell transplants, Dr. Khanna said in his opening remarks.
Trials of drugs for scleroderma have focused on early disease that may be amenable to treatment, with the exception of trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension, which affects some patients with systemic sclerosis. There are multiple FDA-approved drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension and more trials are underway.
Outcomes such as pain and fatigue are included in many of the trials currently underway, but they tend to be lower-level secondary outcomes measures that cannot be incorporated into drug labeling or are more “exploratory in nature,” Dr. Khanna said in the interview.
Dr. Khanna disclosed that he is the chief medical officer (an equity position) for CiVi Biopharma/Eicos Sciences Inc., which is developing a drug for Raynaud’s, and serves as a consultant and grant recipient for numerous companies that make or are developing drugs for systemic sclerosis.
The FDA will accept patient comments until Dec. 15, 2020, at which time comments will be compiled into a summary report, Ms. Bent said.
FROM AN FDA PATIENT-FOCUSED DRUG DEVELOPMENT MEETING
FDA issues new NSAIDs warning for second half of pregnancy
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released new warnings Oct. 15 that most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) carry an elevated risk for kidney complications in unborn children when taken around weeks 20 or later in pregnancy.
Citing newly available research, the agency states the risk of low amniotic fluid (known as oligohydramnios) can occur, which in turn can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the offspring. Pregnancy complications also can result.
The FDA action expands on earlier warnings about agents in this drug class, which the FDA previously cautioned about taking after week 30 of pregnancy because of heart-related risks.
Manufacturers of both over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs – including ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib – will be required to update their labeling with the new warning.
Low-dose (81-mg) aspirin is excluded from this warning.
“Low-dose aspirin may be an important treatment for some women during pregnancy and should be taken under the direction of a healthcare professional,” the agency stated in a news release.
“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in the release. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their healthcare providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”
Oligohydramnios can arise quickly – in as little as 2 days – or weeks after starting regular NSAID use in this patient population. The condition usually resolves if a pregnant woman stops taking the NSAID, the agency notes.
If a health care provider believes NSAIDs are necessary between about 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, use should be limited to the lowest effective dose and shortest duration possible, the Drug Safety Communication notes.
As a reminder, health care professionals and patients should report side effects from NSAIDs to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released new warnings Oct. 15 that most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) carry an elevated risk for kidney complications in unborn children when taken around weeks 20 or later in pregnancy.
Citing newly available research, the agency states the risk of low amniotic fluid (known as oligohydramnios) can occur, which in turn can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the offspring. Pregnancy complications also can result.
The FDA action expands on earlier warnings about agents in this drug class, which the FDA previously cautioned about taking after week 30 of pregnancy because of heart-related risks.
Manufacturers of both over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs – including ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib – will be required to update their labeling with the new warning.
Low-dose (81-mg) aspirin is excluded from this warning.
“Low-dose aspirin may be an important treatment for some women during pregnancy and should be taken under the direction of a healthcare professional,” the agency stated in a news release.
“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in the release. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their healthcare providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”
Oligohydramnios can arise quickly – in as little as 2 days – or weeks after starting regular NSAID use in this patient population. The condition usually resolves if a pregnant woman stops taking the NSAID, the agency notes.
If a health care provider believes NSAIDs are necessary between about 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, use should be limited to the lowest effective dose and shortest duration possible, the Drug Safety Communication notes.
As a reminder, health care professionals and patients should report side effects from NSAIDs to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released new warnings Oct. 15 that most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) carry an elevated risk for kidney complications in unborn children when taken around weeks 20 or later in pregnancy.
Citing newly available research, the agency states the risk of low amniotic fluid (known as oligohydramnios) can occur, which in turn can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the offspring. Pregnancy complications also can result.
The FDA action expands on earlier warnings about agents in this drug class, which the FDA previously cautioned about taking after week 30 of pregnancy because of heart-related risks.
Manufacturers of both over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs – including ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib – will be required to update their labeling with the new warning.
Low-dose (81-mg) aspirin is excluded from this warning.
“Low-dose aspirin may be an important treatment for some women during pregnancy and should be taken under the direction of a healthcare professional,” the agency stated in a news release.
“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in the release. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their healthcare providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”
Oligohydramnios can arise quickly – in as little as 2 days – or weeks after starting regular NSAID use in this patient population. The condition usually resolves if a pregnant woman stops taking the NSAID, the agency notes.
If a health care provider believes NSAIDs are necessary between about 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, use should be limited to the lowest effective dose and shortest duration possible, the Drug Safety Communication notes.
As a reminder, health care professionals and patients should report side effects from NSAIDs to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA posts COVID vaccine guidance amid White House pushback
while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.
The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.
In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.
“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.
FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.
The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”
Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.
But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”
The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.
Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.
News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.
“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”
“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”
Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”
The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”
“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.
In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.
“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.
Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”
“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”
Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”
“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”
On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.
“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.
The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.
In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.
“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.
FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.
The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”
Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.
But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”
The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.
Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.
News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.
“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”
“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”
Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”
The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”
“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.
In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.
“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.
Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”
“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”
Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”
“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”
On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.
“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.
The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.
In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.
“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.
FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.
The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”
Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.
But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”
The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.
Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.
News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.
“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”
“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”
Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”
The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”
“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.
In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.
“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.
Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”
“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”
Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”
“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”
On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.
“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs combination immunotherapy for first-line mesothelioma treatment
This is the first drug regimen to receive regulatory approval for mesothelioma in 16 years and only the second systemic therapy to be approved for this indication.
“Today’s approval of nivolumab plus ipilimumab provides a new treatment that has demonstrated an improvement in overall survival for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma,” 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, said in a statement.
“In 2004, FDA approved pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin for this indication, and now patients have an important, additional treatment option after more than a decade with only one FDA-approved drug regimen,” Dr. Pazdur added.
Improved overall survival
The approval is based on efficacy results from the CheckMate 743 trial, which compared immunotherapy with a chemotherapy regimen in a cohort of more than 600 treatment-naive patients (no systemic therapies) with unresectable mesothelioma.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab and ipilimumab for up to 2 years (n = 303) or six cycles of combination chemotherapy with cisplatin or carboplatin plus pemetrexed (n = 302).
The study results were initially presented during the presidential symposium of the World Congress on Lung Cancer 2020.
The combined immunotherapy regimen was associated with a 26% improvement in overall survival. At 2 years, 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive versus 27% in the chemotherapy group.
Overall, the trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in overall survival for patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus those treated with chemotherapy. Median overall survival was 18.1 months versus 14.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .002).
Median progression-free survival per blinded independent central review was 6.8 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm and 7.2 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 1.0). The confirmed overall response rate was 40% versus 43% in the immunotherapy and chemotherapy arms, respectively.
Median response duration was 11.0 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm and 6.7 months in the chemotherapy arm. At 24 months, 32% of the immunotherapy patients were still experiencing a response, compared with 8% of those in the chemotherapy arm.
The recommended doses for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma are nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years in patients without disease progression.
The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) in patients receiving combination immunotherapy were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, dyspnea, nausea, decreased appetite, cough, and pruritus.
New standard of care?
The CheckMate 743 trial “met its primary endpoint of statistically improving overall survival for the experimental arm vs chemotherapy in a prespecified interim analysis,” reported study author Paul Baas, MD, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, at the time of its presentation.
He suggested that combination nivolumab and ipilimumab should therefore “be considered as a new standard of care.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is the first drug regimen to receive regulatory approval for mesothelioma in 16 years and only the second systemic therapy to be approved for this indication.
“Today’s approval of nivolumab plus ipilimumab provides a new treatment that has demonstrated an improvement in overall survival for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma,” 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, said in a statement.
“In 2004, FDA approved pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin for this indication, and now patients have an important, additional treatment option after more than a decade with only one FDA-approved drug regimen,” Dr. Pazdur added.
Improved overall survival
The approval is based on efficacy results from the CheckMate 743 trial, which compared immunotherapy with a chemotherapy regimen in a cohort of more than 600 treatment-naive patients (no systemic therapies) with unresectable mesothelioma.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab and ipilimumab for up to 2 years (n = 303) or six cycles of combination chemotherapy with cisplatin or carboplatin plus pemetrexed (n = 302).
The study results were initially presented during the presidential symposium of the World Congress on Lung Cancer 2020.
The combined immunotherapy regimen was associated with a 26% improvement in overall survival. At 2 years, 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive versus 27% in the chemotherapy group.
Overall, the trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in overall survival for patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus those treated with chemotherapy. Median overall survival was 18.1 months versus 14.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .002).
Median progression-free survival per blinded independent central review was 6.8 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm and 7.2 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 1.0). The confirmed overall response rate was 40% versus 43% in the immunotherapy and chemotherapy arms, respectively.
Median response duration was 11.0 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm and 6.7 months in the chemotherapy arm. At 24 months, 32% of the immunotherapy patients were still experiencing a response, compared with 8% of those in the chemotherapy arm.
The recommended doses for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma are nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years in patients without disease progression.
The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) in patients receiving combination immunotherapy were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, dyspnea, nausea, decreased appetite, cough, and pruritus.
New standard of care?
The CheckMate 743 trial “met its primary endpoint of statistically improving overall survival for the experimental arm vs chemotherapy in a prespecified interim analysis,” reported study author Paul Baas, MD, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, at the time of its presentation.
He suggested that combination nivolumab and ipilimumab should therefore “be considered as a new standard of care.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is the first drug regimen to receive regulatory approval for mesothelioma in 16 years and only the second systemic therapy to be approved for this indication.
“Today’s approval of nivolumab plus ipilimumab provides a new treatment that has demonstrated an improvement in overall survival for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma,” 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, said in a statement.
“In 2004, FDA approved pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin for this indication, and now patients have an important, additional treatment option after more than a decade with only one FDA-approved drug regimen,” Dr. Pazdur added.
Improved overall survival
The approval is based on efficacy results from the CheckMate 743 trial, which compared immunotherapy with a chemotherapy regimen in a cohort of more than 600 treatment-naive patients (no systemic therapies) with unresectable mesothelioma.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab and ipilimumab for up to 2 years (n = 303) or six cycles of combination chemotherapy with cisplatin or carboplatin plus pemetrexed (n = 302).
The study results were initially presented during the presidential symposium of the World Congress on Lung Cancer 2020.
The combined immunotherapy regimen was associated with a 26% improvement in overall survival. At 2 years, 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive versus 27% in the chemotherapy group.
Overall, the trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in overall survival for patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus those treated with chemotherapy. Median overall survival was 18.1 months versus 14.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .002).
Median progression-free survival per blinded independent central review was 6.8 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm and 7.2 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 1.0). The confirmed overall response rate was 40% versus 43% in the immunotherapy and chemotherapy arms, respectively.
Median response duration was 11.0 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm and 6.7 months in the chemotherapy arm. At 24 months, 32% of the immunotherapy patients were still experiencing a response, compared with 8% of those in the chemotherapy arm.
The recommended doses for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma are nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years in patients without disease progression.
The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) in patients receiving combination immunotherapy were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, dyspnea, nausea, decreased appetite, cough, and pruritus.
New standard of care?
The CheckMate 743 trial “met its primary endpoint of statistically improving overall survival for the experimental arm vs chemotherapy in a prespecified interim analysis,” reported study author Paul Baas, MD, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, at the time of its presentation.
He suggested that combination nivolumab and ipilimumab should therefore “be considered as a new standard of care.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Golimumab approval extended to polyarticular-course JIA and juvenile PsA
after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.
Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.
Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m2, also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.
The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.
The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.
after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.
Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.
Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m2, also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.
The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.
The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.
after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.
Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.
Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m2, also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.
The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.
The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.
Suicide in America: The urban-rural divide
The gap in suicide rates between rural and urban areas has widened since 2000 for both males and females, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.
After remaining stable from 2000 to 2007, the suicide rate for rural males rose 34% from 2007 to 2018, versus 17% among urban males over the same period. Suicide rates for females were significantly lower than those of men, but the changes were larger. For rural females, the rate increased 91% from 2000 to 2018, compared with 51% for urban females, Kristen Pettrone, MD, MPH, and Sally C. Curtin, MA, said in an NCHS Data Brief.
For 2018, the last year with available data, the age-adjusted rates look like this: 21.5 per 100,000 population for urban males, 30.7 for rural males, 5.9 per 100,000 for urban females, and 8.0 for rural females. The overall rate for the United States was 14.2 per 100,000, with combined male/female rates of 13.4 in urban areas and 19.4 in rural areas, the researchers said.
Methods of suicide also varied by sex and urban-rural status. Firearms were the leading method for males in both rural and urban areas, but females split between firearms in rural areas and suffocation (including hangings) in urban areas, said Dr. Pettrone of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Ms. Curtin of the NCHS.
Suffocation, however, was the fastest-growing method from 2000 to 2018, regardless of sex or location. Suffocation-related suicide rates more than quadrupled for rural females, and more than doubled for urban females and rural males, while rates rose 85% among males in urban areas, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.
“Suicide has remained the 10th leading cause of death in the United States since 2008,” they wrote, and
SOURCE: Pettrone K, Curtin SC. 2020 Aug. NCHS Data Brief, No 373.
The gap in suicide rates between rural and urban areas has widened since 2000 for both males and females, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.
After remaining stable from 2000 to 2007, the suicide rate for rural males rose 34% from 2007 to 2018, versus 17% among urban males over the same period. Suicide rates for females were significantly lower than those of men, but the changes were larger. For rural females, the rate increased 91% from 2000 to 2018, compared with 51% for urban females, Kristen Pettrone, MD, MPH, and Sally C. Curtin, MA, said in an NCHS Data Brief.
For 2018, the last year with available data, the age-adjusted rates look like this: 21.5 per 100,000 population for urban males, 30.7 for rural males, 5.9 per 100,000 for urban females, and 8.0 for rural females. The overall rate for the United States was 14.2 per 100,000, with combined male/female rates of 13.4 in urban areas and 19.4 in rural areas, the researchers said.
Methods of suicide also varied by sex and urban-rural status. Firearms were the leading method for males in both rural and urban areas, but females split between firearms in rural areas and suffocation (including hangings) in urban areas, said Dr. Pettrone of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Ms. Curtin of the NCHS.
Suffocation, however, was the fastest-growing method from 2000 to 2018, regardless of sex or location. Suffocation-related suicide rates more than quadrupled for rural females, and more than doubled for urban females and rural males, while rates rose 85% among males in urban areas, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.
“Suicide has remained the 10th leading cause of death in the United States since 2008,” they wrote, and
SOURCE: Pettrone K, Curtin SC. 2020 Aug. NCHS Data Brief, No 373.
The gap in suicide rates between rural and urban areas has widened since 2000 for both males and females, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.
After remaining stable from 2000 to 2007, the suicide rate for rural males rose 34% from 2007 to 2018, versus 17% among urban males over the same period. Suicide rates for females were significantly lower than those of men, but the changes were larger. For rural females, the rate increased 91% from 2000 to 2018, compared with 51% for urban females, Kristen Pettrone, MD, MPH, and Sally C. Curtin, MA, said in an NCHS Data Brief.
For 2018, the last year with available data, the age-adjusted rates look like this: 21.5 per 100,000 population for urban males, 30.7 for rural males, 5.9 per 100,000 for urban females, and 8.0 for rural females. The overall rate for the United States was 14.2 per 100,000, with combined male/female rates of 13.4 in urban areas and 19.4 in rural areas, the researchers said.
Methods of suicide also varied by sex and urban-rural status. Firearms were the leading method for males in both rural and urban areas, but females split between firearms in rural areas and suffocation (including hangings) in urban areas, said Dr. Pettrone of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Ms. Curtin of the NCHS.
Suffocation, however, was the fastest-growing method from 2000 to 2018, regardless of sex or location. Suffocation-related suicide rates more than quadrupled for rural females, and more than doubled for urban females and rural males, while rates rose 85% among males in urban areas, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.
“Suicide has remained the 10th leading cause of death in the United States since 2008,” they wrote, and
SOURCE: Pettrone K, Curtin SC. 2020 Aug. NCHS Data Brief, No 373.
FDA adds polyarticular-course JIA to approved indications for tofacitinib
The Food and Drug Administration has (pJIA).
The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.
The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.
The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.
While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.
Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.
The Food and Drug Administration has (pJIA).
The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.
The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.
The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.
While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.
Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.
The Food and Drug Administration has (pJIA).
The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.
The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.
The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.
While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.
Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.
High schoolers send mixed signals on contraceptive use
according to data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).
Nonuse of birth control in this population dropped to 11.9% in 2019, but the overall trend is one of no significant change since 2003. Meanwhile, the use of birth control pills has taken a different path, with prevalence rising significantly from 16.0% in 2007 to 23.0% in 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.
The prevalence of condom use among sexually active students was 54.3% in 2019, up from 53.8% in 2017 – the survey is conducted every 2 years – but down from a high of 63.0% in 2003, the YRBS data show.
Condoms were the most prevalent method of contraception, but the finding that “only approximately half of sexually active students reported any condom use at last sexual intercourse … is concerning given the high risk for STDs among this population,” Leigh E. Szucs, PhD, and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In 2019, White (55.8%) and Hispanic (56.2%) students were more likely than Blacks (48.2%) to have used a condom during their last sexual intercourse, but use of birth control pills was much higher among Whites (29.1%) than Hispanics (15.4%) or Blacks (12.9%).The Black respondents were much more likely (23.0%) to use no contraceptive method, compared with Whites (8.4%) or Hispanics (13.3%), they said.
“Meeting the unintended pregnancy and STD/HIV prevention needs of black and Hispanic youths is vital,” wrote Dr. Szucs of the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention and associates. “Understanding and addressing structural barriers that might contribute to the observed differences are important next steps.”
The high school students taking the YRBS were considered sexually active if they had intercourse with at least one person in the previous 3 months. Overall, 3,226 (27.4%) of respondents in 2019 reported being sexually active: 52.2% were female and 47.8% were male, the CDC said.
SOURCE: Szucs LE et al. MMWR. 2019 Aug 21;69(SS-01)11-8.
according to data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).
Nonuse of birth control in this population dropped to 11.9% in 2019, but the overall trend is one of no significant change since 2003. Meanwhile, the use of birth control pills has taken a different path, with prevalence rising significantly from 16.0% in 2007 to 23.0% in 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.
The prevalence of condom use among sexually active students was 54.3% in 2019, up from 53.8% in 2017 – the survey is conducted every 2 years – but down from a high of 63.0% in 2003, the YRBS data show.
Condoms were the most prevalent method of contraception, but the finding that “only approximately half of sexually active students reported any condom use at last sexual intercourse … is concerning given the high risk for STDs among this population,” Leigh E. Szucs, PhD, and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In 2019, White (55.8%) and Hispanic (56.2%) students were more likely than Blacks (48.2%) to have used a condom during their last sexual intercourse, but use of birth control pills was much higher among Whites (29.1%) than Hispanics (15.4%) or Blacks (12.9%).The Black respondents were much more likely (23.0%) to use no contraceptive method, compared with Whites (8.4%) or Hispanics (13.3%), they said.
“Meeting the unintended pregnancy and STD/HIV prevention needs of black and Hispanic youths is vital,” wrote Dr. Szucs of the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention and associates. “Understanding and addressing structural barriers that might contribute to the observed differences are important next steps.”
The high school students taking the YRBS were considered sexually active if they had intercourse with at least one person in the previous 3 months. Overall, 3,226 (27.4%) of respondents in 2019 reported being sexually active: 52.2% were female and 47.8% were male, the CDC said.
SOURCE: Szucs LE et al. MMWR. 2019 Aug 21;69(SS-01)11-8.
according to data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).
Nonuse of birth control in this population dropped to 11.9% in 2019, but the overall trend is one of no significant change since 2003. Meanwhile, the use of birth control pills has taken a different path, with prevalence rising significantly from 16.0% in 2007 to 23.0% in 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.
The prevalence of condom use among sexually active students was 54.3% in 2019, up from 53.8% in 2017 – the survey is conducted every 2 years – but down from a high of 63.0% in 2003, the YRBS data show.
Condoms were the most prevalent method of contraception, but the finding that “only approximately half of sexually active students reported any condom use at last sexual intercourse … is concerning given the high risk for STDs among this population,” Leigh E. Szucs, PhD, and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In 2019, White (55.8%) and Hispanic (56.2%) students were more likely than Blacks (48.2%) to have used a condom during their last sexual intercourse, but use of birth control pills was much higher among Whites (29.1%) than Hispanics (15.4%) or Blacks (12.9%).The Black respondents were much more likely (23.0%) to use no contraceptive method, compared with Whites (8.4%) or Hispanics (13.3%), they said.
“Meeting the unintended pregnancy and STD/HIV prevention needs of black and Hispanic youths is vital,” wrote Dr. Szucs of the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention and associates. “Understanding and addressing structural barriers that might contribute to the observed differences are important next steps.”
The high school students taking the YRBS were considered sexually active if they had intercourse with at least one person in the previous 3 months. Overall, 3,226 (27.4%) of respondents in 2019 reported being sexually active: 52.2% were female and 47.8% were male, the CDC said.
SOURCE: Szucs LE et al. MMWR. 2019 Aug 21;69(SS-01)11-8.
Suicide rates up significantly among adolescents, young adults
Suicide rates in young people aged 10-24 years increased significantly in 42 states from 2007-2009 to 2016-2018, according to a recent analysis from the National Center for Health Statistics.
Nationally, the suicide rate jumped 47%, based on the averages for the two 3-year periods, rising from 7.0 per 100,000 persons aged 10-24 years to 10.3 per 100,000. For all ages, the corresponding increase was 47%, Sally C. Curtin, MA, of the NCHS, said in a National Vital Statistics Report.
There was no state with a decrease in suicide rates for adolescents and young adults, as the other eight all had nonsignificant increases, the smallest being 14% in South Dakota. Three-year averages were used to increase statistical power for states with relatively small numbers of deaths but were still not enough to show significance for some large increases, such as the 48% rise in Delaware, Ms. Curtin noted.
In 2016-2018, Alaska’s suicide rate of 31.8 per 100,000 persons aged 10-24 years was the highest in the country, followed by South Dakota (23.6), Montana (23.2), and Wyoming (20.5). New Jersey had the lowest rate at 5.7 per 100,000, with New York and Rhode Island both slightly higher at 5.9 and Connecticut at 6.3, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.
Even the low numbers, however, hide some large changes, as New Jersey (up by 39%) and New York (up by 44%) were among the 42 states with statistically significant increases, which ranged from 21.7% in Maryland to 110% in New Hampshire, Ms. Curtin said in the report. The increases seen in this analysis contrast with data from the preceding time period, as “the suicide rate among persons aged 10-24 was statistically stable from 2000 to 2007.”
SOURCE: Curtin SC. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2020;69(11)1-9.
Suicide rates in young people aged 10-24 years increased significantly in 42 states from 2007-2009 to 2016-2018, according to a recent analysis from the National Center for Health Statistics.
Nationally, the suicide rate jumped 47%, based on the averages for the two 3-year periods, rising from 7.0 per 100,000 persons aged 10-24 years to 10.3 per 100,000. For all ages, the corresponding increase was 47%, Sally C. Curtin, MA, of the NCHS, said in a National Vital Statistics Report.
There was no state with a decrease in suicide rates for adolescents and young adults, as the other eight all had nonsignificant increases, the smallest being 14% in South Dakota. Three-year averages were used to increase statistical power for states with relatively small numbers of deaths but were still not enough to show significance for some large increases, such as the 48% rise in Delaware, Ms. Curtin noted.
In 2016-2018, Alaska’s suicide rate of 31.8 per 100,000 persons aged 10-24 years was the highest in the country, followed by South Dakota (23.6), Montana (23.2), and Wyoming (20.5). New Jersey had the lowest rate at 5.7 per 100,000, with New York and Rhode Island both slightly higher at 5.9 and Connecticut at 6.3, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.
Even the low numbers, however, hide some large changes, as New Jersey (up by 39%) and New York (up by 44%) were among the 42 states with statistically significant increases, which ranged from 21.7% in Maryland to 110% in New Hampshire, Ms. Curtin said in the report. The increases seen in this analysis contrast with data from the preceding time period, as “the suicide rate among persons aged 10-24 was statistically stable from 2000 to 2007.”
SOURCE: Curtin SC. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2020;69(11)1-9.
Suicide rates in young people aged 10-24 years increased significantly in 42 states from 2007-2009 to 2016-2018, according to a recent analysis from the National Center for Health Statistics.
Nationally, the suicide rate jumped 47%, based on the averages for the two 3-year periods, rising from 7.0 per 100,000 persons aged 10-24 years to 10.3 per 100,000. For all ages, the corresponding increase was 47%, Sally C. Curtin, MA, of the NCHS, said in a National Vital Statistics Report.
There was no state with a decrease in suicide rates for adolescents and young adults, as the other eight all had nonsignificant increases, the smallest being 14% in South Dakota. Three-year averages were used to increase statistical power for states with relatively small numbers of deaths but were still not enough to show significance for some large increases, such as the 48% rise in Delaware, Ms. Curtin noted.
In 2016-2018, Alaska’s suicide rate of 31.8 per 100,000 persons aged 10-24 years was the highest in the country, followed by South Dakota (23.6), Montana (23.2), and Wyoming (20.5). New Jersey had the lowest rate at 5.7 per 100,000, with New York and Rhode Island both slightly higher at 5.9 and Connecticut at 6.3, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.
Even the low numbers, however, hide some large changes, as New Jersey (up by 39%) and New York (up by 44%) were among the 42 states with statistically significant increases, which ranged from 21.7% in Maryland to 110% in New Hampshire, Ms. Curtin said in the report. The increases seen in this analysis contrast with data from the preceding time period, as “the suicide rate among persons aged 10-24 was statistically stable from 2000 to 2007.”
SOURCE: Curtin SC. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2020;69(11)1-9.
Disparities seen in COVID-19–related avoidance of care
In the early weeks and months of the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were trying to avoid the coronavirus by staying away from emergency rooms and medical offices. But how many people is “many”?
Turns out almost 41% of Americans delayed or avoided some form of medical care because of concerns about COVID-19, according to the results of a survey conducted June 24-30 by commercial survey company Qualtrics.
More specifically, the avoidance looks like this: 31.5% of the 4,975 adult respondents had avoided routine care and 12.0% had avoided urgent or emergency care, Mark E. Czeisler and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The two categories were not mutually exclusive since respondents could select both routine care and urgent/emergency care.
There were, however, a number of significant disparities hidden among those numbers for the overall population. Blacks and Hispanics, with respective prevalences of 23.3% and 24.6%, were significantly more likely to delay or avoid urgent/emergency care than were Whites (6.7%), said Mr. Czeisler, a graduate student at Monash University, Melbourne, and associates.
Those differences “are especially concerning given increased COVID-19–associated mortality among Black adults and Hispanic adults,” they noted, adding that “age-adjusted COVID-19 hospitalization rates are approximately five times higher among Black persons and four times higher among Hispanic persons than” among Whites.
Other significant disparities in urgent/emergency care avoidance included the following:
- Unpaid caregivers for adults (29.8%) vs. noncaregivers (5.4%).
- Adults with two or more underlying conditions (22.7%) vs. those without such conditions (8.2%).
- Those with a disability (22.8%) vs. those without (8.9%).
- Those with health insurance (12.4%) vs. those without (7.8%).
The highest prevalence for all types of COVID-19–related delay and avoidance came from the adult caregivers (64.3%), followed by those with a disability (60.3%) and adults aged 18-24 years (57.2%). The lowest prevalence numbers were for adults with health insurance (24.8%) and those who were not caregivers for adults (32.2%), Mr. Czeisler and associates reported.
These reports of delayed and avoided care “might reflect adherence to community mitigation efforts such as stay-at-home orders, temporary closures of health facilities, or additional factors. However, if routine care avoidance were to be sustained, adults could miss opportunities for management of chronic conditions, receipt of routine vaccinations, or early detection of new conditions, which might worsen outcomes,” they wrote.
SOURCE: Czeisler ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Sep 11;69(36):1250-7.
In the early weeks and months of the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were trying to avoid the coronavirus by staying away from emergency rooms and medical offices. But how many people is “many”?
Turns out almost 41% of Americans delayed or avoided some form of medical care because of concerns about COVID-19, according to the results of a survey conducted June 24-30 by commercial survey company Qualtrics.
More specifically, the avoidance looks like this: 31.5% of the 4,975 adult respondents had avoided routine care and 12.0% had avoided urgent or emergency care, Mark E. Czeisler and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The two categories were not mutually exclusive since respondents could select both routine care and urgent/emergency care.
There were, however, a number of significant disparities hidden among those numbers for the overall population. Blacks and Hispanics, with respective prevalences of 23.3% and 24.6%, were significantly more likely to delay or avoid urgent/emergency care than were Whites (6.7%), said Mr. Czeisler, a graduate student at Monash University, Melbourne, and associates.
Those differences “are especially concerning given increased COVID-19–associated mortality among Black adults and Hispanic adults,” they noted, adding that “age-adjusted COVID-19 hospitalization rates are approximately five times higher among Black persons and four times higher among Hispanic persons than” among Whites.
Other significant disparities in urgent/emergency care avoidance included the following:
- Unpaid caregivers for adults (29.8%) vs. noncaregivers (5.4%).
- Adults with two or more underlying conditions (22.7%) vs. those without such conditions (8.2%).
- Those with a disability (22.8%) vs. those without (8.9%).
- Those with health insurance (12.4%) vs. those without (7.8%).
The highest prevalence for all types of COVID-19–related delay and avoidance came from the adult caregivers (64.3%), followed by those with a disability (60.3%) and adults aged 18-24 years (57.2%). The lowest prevalence numbers were for adults with health insurance (24.8%) and those who were not caregivers for adults (32.2%), Mr. Czeisler and associates reported.
These reports of delayed and avoided care “might reflect adherence to community mitigation efforts such as stay-at-home orders, temporary closures of health facilities, or additional factors. However, if routine care avoidance were to be sustained, adults could miss opportunities for management of chronic conditions, receipt of routine vaccinations, or early detection of new conditions, which might worsen outcomes,” they wrote.
SOURCE: Czeisler ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Sep 11;69(36):1250-7.
In the early weeks and months of the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were trying to avoid the coronavirus by staying away from emergency rooms and medical offices. But how many people is “many”?
Turns out almost 41% of Americans delayed or avoided some form of medical care because of concerns about COVID-19, according to the results of a survey conducted June 24-30 by commercial survey company Qualtrics.
More specifically, the avoidance looks like this: 31.5% of the 4,975 adult respondents had avoided routine care and 12.0% had avoided urgent or emergency care, Mark E. Czeisler and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The two categories were not mutually exclusive since respondents could select both routine care and urgent/emergency care.
There were, however, a number of significant disparities hidden among those numbers for the overall population. Blacks and Hispanics, with respective prevalences of 23.3% and 24.6%, were significantly more likely to delay or avoid urgent/emergency care than were Whites (6.7%), said Mr. Czeisler, a graduate student at Monash University, Melbourne, and associates.
Those differences “are especially concerning given increased COVID-19–associated mortality among Black adults and Hispanic adults,” they noted, adding that “age-adjusted COVID-19 hospitalization rates are approximately five times higher among Black persons and four times higher among Hispanic persons than” among Whites.
Other significant disparities in urgent/emergency care avoidance included the following:
- Unpaid caregivers for adults (29.8%) vs. noncaregivers (5.4%).
- Adults with two or more underlying conditions (22.7%) vs. those without such conditions (8.2%).
- Those with a disability (22.8%) vs. those without (8.9%).
- Those with health insurance (12.4%) vs. those without (7.8%).
The highest prevalence for all types of COVID-19–related delay and avoidance came from the adult caregivers (64.3%), followed by those with a disability (60.3%) and adults aged 18-24 years (57.2%). The lowest prevalence numbers were for adults with health insurance (24.8%) and those who were not caregivers for adults (32.2%), Mr. Czeisler and associates reported.
These reports of delayed and avoided care “might reflect adherence to community mitigation efforts such as stay-at-home orders, temporary closures of health facilities, or additional factors. However, if routine care avoidance were to be sustained, adults could miss opportunities for management of chronic conditions, receipt of routine vaccinations, or early detection of new conditions, which might worsen outcomes,” they wrote.
SOURCE: Czeisler ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Sep 11;69(36):1250-7.