User login
-
BMJ slams ‘incompetent’ Facebook fact-checking of vaccine article
According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”
The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”
It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”
The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”
Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors
The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.
However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”
Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”
Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”
Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.
The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.
Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.
While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.
This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.
Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”
The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”
It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”
The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”
Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors
The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.
However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”
Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”
Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”
Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.
The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.
Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.
While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.
This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.
Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”
The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”
It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”
The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”
Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors
The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.
However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”
Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”
Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”
Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.
The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.
Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.
While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.
This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.
Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Voxelotor for sickle cell anemia now down to 4-year-olds
The indication had previously been for patients 12 years old and up, the FDA said in an announcement.
Voxelotor (Oxbryta) was originally approved for sickle cell disease in November 2019 and was described as the first drug that directly inhibits sickle hemoglobin polymerization, the root cause of the disease. It binds and stabilizes hemoglobin to prevent red blood cells from sickling and being destroyed.
Approval for the new indication of use in children down to age 4 was based on data from a phase 2 trial that involved 45 children aged 4-11 years; the results show that 36% had an increase in hemoglobin greater than 1 g/dL by week 24, the FDA said.
“Complications of [sickle cell disease] that can cause irreversible organ damage are known to begin in the first few years of life, which is why earlier intervention is critical,” commented Ted Love, MD, president and CEO of Global Blood Therapeutics, the manufacturer, in a press release.
The company is studying voxelotor in children as young as 9 months old.
The agent was granted an accelerated approval by the FDA, so continued approval depends on additional data to confirm that increases in hemoglobin have clinical benefit.
With the new approvals, voxelotor is now available in 500-mg tablets and the 300-mg tablets for oral suspension. Dosing for ages 12 years and up is 1,500 mg once daily. Dosing for children 4 to up to 12 years old is weight based.
The most common side effects are headache, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, rash, and fever.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The indication had previously been for patients 12 years old and up, the FDA said in an announcement.
Voxelotor (Oxbryta) was originally approved for sickle cell disease in November 2019 and was described as the first drug that directly inhibits sickle hemoglobin polymerization, the root cause of the disease. It binds and stabilizes hemoglobin to prevent red blood cells from sickling and being destroyed.
Approval for the new indication of use in children down to age 4 was based on data from a phase 2 trial that involved 45 children aged 4-11 years; the results show that 36% had an increase in hemoglobin greater than 1 g/dL by week 24, the FDA said.
“Complications of [sickle cell disease] that can cause irreversible organ damage are known to begin in the first few years of life, which is why earlier intervention is critical,” commented Ted Love, MD, president and CEO of Global Blood Therapeutics, the manufacturer, in a press release.
The company is studying voxelotor in children as young as 9 months old.
The agent was granted an accelerated approval by the FDA, so continued approval depends on additional data to confirm that increases in hemoglobin have clinical benefit.
With the new approvals, voxelotor is now available in 500-mg tablets and the 300-mg tablets for oral suspension. Dosing for ages 12 years and up is 1,500 mg once daily. Dosing for children 4 to up to 12 years old is weight based.
The most common side effects are headache, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, rash, and fever.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The indication had previously been for patients 12 years old and up, the FDA said in an announcement.
Voxelotor (Oxbryta) was originally approved for sickle cell disease in November 2019 and was described as the first drug that directly inhibits sickle hemoglobin polymerization, the root cause of the disease. It binds and stabilizes hemoglobin to prevent red blood cells from sickling and being destroyed.
Approval for the new indication of use in children down to age 4 was based on data from a phase 2 trial that involved 45 children aged 4-11 years; the results show that 36% had an increase in hemoglobin greater than 1 g/dL by week 24, the FDA said.
“Complications of [sickle cell disease] that can cause irreversible organ damage are known to begin in the first few years of life, which is why earlier intervention is critical,” commented Ted Love, MD, president and CEO of Global Blood Therapeutics, the manufacturer, in a press release.
The company is studying voxelotor in children as young as 9 months old.
The agent was granted an accelerated approval by the FDA, so continued approval depends on additional data to confirm that increases in hemoglobin have clinical benefit.
With the new approvals, voxelotor is now available in 500-mg tablets and the 300-mg tablets for oral suspension. Dosing for ages 12 years and up is 1,500 mg once daily. Dosing for children 4 to up to 12 years old is weight based.
The most common side effects are headache, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, rash, and fever.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Who benefits most from device PFO closure after a stroke?
It has been well established that device closure has, on average, prevented stroke recurrence in people who’ve had patent foramen ovale–associated stroke, but a meta-analysis has drilled down into clinical trials to advance a potentially practice-changing principle: that, while device closure shows an overall benefit, not all patients derive a benefit and some may actually be harmed by the procedure.
What’s more, the researchers developed a scoring system that helps determine which patients are likely to benefit from device closure.
“What was unknown was how to treat individual patients because the decision to close the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is still preference sensitive because the risk of a recurrent stroke is low, and most of the strokes that recur are not terribly severe,” lead study author David M. Kent, MD, MS, said in an interview.
“On top of this,” he said, “it was still suspected that some of the PFOs, even in trials of well-selected patients, may not be causally related to stroke; the stroke may still have another occult cause, such as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or aortic arch atheroma.” Dr. Kent is a professor of medicine at Tufts University in Boston and director of the Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center there.
The meta-analysis, conducted by the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) consortium, analyzed data from six randomized clinical trials that compared device closure and medical therapy to medical therapy alone in 3,740 patients who had PFO-associated stroke from 2000 to 2017. It was published in JAMA.
Overall, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was less than half that in patients who had device closure, compared with those who were on medical therapy: 0.47% (n = 39 of 1,889) vs. 1.09% (n = 82 of 1,851).
The researchers also applied two tools designed to calculate the probability of recurrent stroke in individual patients: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE), an index that assigns a score of 0-10 to stratify cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO by the likelihood that the stroke was associated with their PFO; and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which integrates the RoPE score with physiological and anatomical features – namely, the size of the PFO shunt and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm.
“We came up with a way to more accurately identify those patients who are likely to get the most benefit from PFO closure based on mathematic modeling that estimates an individual’s probability that the PFO is causally related to the stroke,” Dr. Kent said.
Multivariate analysis determines risk
The study used a multivariate classification system that Dr. Kent had been developing to perform subgroup analyses of the clinical trials. It assigned patients to three different risk groups based on the likelihood that the PFO was causally related to their stroke: PASCAL categories of unlikely, possible, and probable.
The PASCAL unlikely group had a risk of stroke recurrence in the first 2 years of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-5.7%) if they were on medical therapy, and 4.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.4%) if they had device closure. In the PASCAL possible group, those risks were 3.6% (95% CI, 2.4%-4.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7-2.3%), respectively. For the probable group, device closure represents “a near perfect therapy” with a 90% risk reduction, Dr. Kent said. “Moreover,” he said, “adverse events of device closure, such as atrial fibrillation, appear to be concentrated in those patients who fall into the unlikely classification, who appear to get no benefit.”
The ideal patient for device closure is age 60 years or younger and without vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, a history of smoking, or a prior stroke, but has high-risk PFO features such as a large shunt or atrial septal aneurysm, Dr. Kent said.
“We think these findings should be practice changing now,” Dr. Kent said.
Faisal M. Merchant, MD, director of cardiac electrophysiology at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, concurred with that statement. “This is in my mind probably as good as any data we’re going to get on this,” he said in an interview. “The results support what’s been a general gestalt in the clinical world, but [also] really provide an evidence base on how to make decisions.”
He noted that guidelines, including those of the American Academy of Neurology, recommend medical therapy or device closure to prevent recurrent stroke in people who’ve had PFO-associated ischemic stroke. “But they hedge a bit,” he said of the guidelines. “We haven’t had data that’s as robust as this. I think this really solidifies those recommendations.”
He also credited the “unique” study design to extract findings from clinical trials and apply them to personalized medicine. “Clinical trial results give you an average treatment effect of the patients included, but who are ones who really benefit? Who are the ones that don’t benefit? Who are the ones who are harmed?” Dr. Merchant said. “It’s rare that you can parse out this nicely between the people who both benefit and are less likely to be harmed and the people who don’t benefit and are more likely to be harmed.”
The study received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Kent disclosed relationships with PCORI, W.L. Gore and the Canadian Stroke Consortium. Dr. Merchant has no relevant disclosures.
It has been well established that device closure has, on average, prevented stroke recurrence in people who’ve had patent foramen ovale–associated stroke, but a meta-analysis has drilled down into clinical trials to advance a potentially practice-changing principle: that, while device closure shows an overall benefit, not all patients derive a benefit and some may actually be harmed by the procedure.
What’s more, the researchers developed a scoring system that helps determine which patients are likely to benefit from device closure.
“What was unknown was how to treat individual patients because the decision to close the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is still preference sensitive because the risk of a recurrent stroke is low, and most of the strokes that recur are not terribly severe,” lead study author David M. Kent, MD, MS, said in an interview.
“On top of this,” he said, “it was still suspected that some of the PFOs, even in trials of well-selected patients, may not be causally related to stroke; the stroke may still have another occult cause, such as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or aortic arch atheroma.” Dr. Kent is a professor of medicine at Tufts University in Boston and director of the Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center there.
The meta-analysis, conducted by the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) consortium, analyzed data from six randomized clinical trials that compared device closure and medical therapy to medical therapy alone in 3,740 patients who had PFO-associated stroke from 2000 to 2017. It was published in JAMA.
Overall, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was less than half that in patients who had device closure, compared with those who were on medical therapy: 0.47% (n = 39 of 1,889) vs. 1.09% (n = 82 of 1,851).
The researchers also applied two tools designed to calculate the probability of recurrent stroke in individual patients: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE), an index that assigns a score of 0-10 to stratify cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO by the likelihood that the stroke was associated with their PFO; and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which integrates the RoPE score with physiological and anatomical features – namely, the size of the PFO shunt and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm.
“We came up with a way to more accurately identify those patients who are likely to get the most benefit from PFO closure based on mathematic modeling that estimates an individual’s probability that the PFO is causally related to the stroke,” Dr. Kent said.
Multivariate analysis determines risk
The study used a multivariate classification system that Dr. Kent had been developing to perform subgroup analyses of the clinical trials. It assigned patients to three different risk groups based on the likelihood that the PFO was causally related to their stroke: PASCAL categories of unlikely, possible, and probable.
The PASCAL unlikely group had a risk of stroke recurrence in the first 2 years of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-5.7%) if they were on medical therapy, and 4.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.4%) if they had device closure. In the PASCAL possible group, those risks were 3.6% (95% CI, 2.4%-4.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7-2.3%), respectively. For the probable group, device closure represents “a near perfect therapy” with a 90% risk reduction, Dr. Kent said. “Moreover,” he said, “adverse events of device closure, such as atrial fibrillation, appear to be concentrated in those patients who fall into the unlikely classification, who appear to get no benefit.”
The ideal patient for device closure is age 60 years or younger and without vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, a history of smoking, or a prior stroke, but has high-risk PFO features such as a large shunt or atrial septal aneurysm, Dr. Kent said.
“We think these findings should be practice changing now,” Dr. Kent said.
Faisal M. Merchant, MD, director of cardiac electrophysiology at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, concurred with that statement. “This is in my mind probably as good as any data we’re going to get on this,” he said in an interview. “The results support what’s been a general gestalt in the clinical world, but [also] really provide an evidence base on how to make decisions.”
He noted that guidelines, including those of the American Academy of Neurology, recommend medical therapy or device closure to prevent recurrent stroke in people who’ve had PFO-associated ischemic stroke. “But they hedge a bit,” he said of the guidelines. “We haven’t had data that’s as robust as this. I think this really solidifies those recommendations.”
He also credited the “unique” study design to extract findings from clinical trials and apply them to personalized medicine. “Clinical trial results give you an average treatment effect of the patients included, but who are ones who really benefit? Who are the ones that don’t benefit? Who are the ones who are harmed?” Dr. Merchant said. “It’s rare that you can parse out this nicely between the people who both benefit and are less likely to be harmed and the people who don’t benefit and are more likely to be harmed.”
The study received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Kent disclosed relationships with PCORI, W.L. Gore and the Canadian Stroke Consortium. Dr. Merchant has no relevant disclosures.
It has been well established that device closure has, on average, prevented stroke recurrence in people who’ve had patent foramen ovale–associated stroke, but a meta-analysis has drilled down into clinical trials to advance a potentially practice-changing principle: that, while device closure shows an overall benefit, not all patients derive a benefit and some may actually be harmed by the procedure.
What’s more, the researchers developed a scoring system that helps determine which patients are likely to benefit from device closure.
“What was unknown was how to treat individual patients because the decision to close the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is still preference sensitive because the risk of a recurrent stroke is low, and most of the strokes that recur are not terribly severe,” lead study author David M. Kent, MD, MS, said in an interview.
“On top of this,” he said, “it was still suspected that some of the PFOs, even in trials of well-selected patients, may not be causally related to stroke; the stroke may still have another occult cause, such as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or aortic arch atheroma.” Dr. Kent is a professor of medicine at Tufts University in Boston and director of the Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center there.
The meta-analysis, conducted by the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) consortium, analyzed data from six randomized clinical trials that compared device closure and medical therapy to medical therapy alone in 3,740 patients who had PFO-associated stroke from 2000 to 2017. It was published in JAMA.
Overall, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was less than half that in patients who had device closure, compared with those who were on medical therapy: 0.47% (n = 39 of 1,889) vs. 1.09% (n = 82 of 1,851).
The researchers also applied two tools designed to calculate the probability of recurrent stroke in individual patients: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE), an index that assigns a score of 0-10 to stratify cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO by the likelihood that the stroke was associated with their PFO; and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which integrates the RoPE score with physiological and anatomical features – namely, the size of the PFO shunt and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm.
“We came up with a way to more accurately identify those patients who are likely to get the most benefit from PFO closure based on mathematic modeling that estimates an individual’s probability that the PFO is causally related to the stroke,” Dr. Kent said.
Multivariate analysis determines risk
The study used a multivariate classification system that Dr. Kent had been developing to perform subgroup analyses of the clinical trials. It assigned patients to three different risk groups based on the likelihood that the PFO was causally related to their stroke: PASCAL categories of unlikely, possible, and probable.
The PASCAL unlikely group had a risk of stroke recurrence in the first 2 years of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-5.7%) if they were on medical therapy, and 4.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.4%) if they had device closure. In the PASCAL possible group, those risks were 3.6% (95% CI, 2.4%-4.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7-2.3%), respectively. For the probable group, device closure represents “a near perfect therapy” with a 90% risk reduction, Dr. Kent said. “Moreover,” he said, “adverse events of device closure, such as atrial fibrillation, appear to be concentrated in those patients who fall into the unlikely classification, who appear to get no benefit.”
The ideal patient for device closure is age 60 years or younger and without vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, a history of smoking, or a prior stroke, but has high-risk PFO features such as a large shunt or atrial septal aneurysm, Dr. Kent said.
“We think these findings should be practice changing now,” Dr. Kent said.
Faisal M. Merchant, MD, director of cardiac electrophysiology at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, concurred with that statement. “This is in my mind probably as good as any data we’re going to get on this,” he said in an interview. “The results support what’s been a general gestalt in the clinical world, but [also] really provide an evidence base on how to make decisions.”
He noted that guidelines, including those of the American Academy of Neurology, recommend medical therapy or device closure to prevent recurrent stroke in people who’ve had PFO-associated ischemic stroke. “But they hedge a bit,” he said of the guidelines. “We haven’t had data that’s as robust as this. I think this really solidifies those recommendations.”
He also credited the “unique” study design to extract findings from clinical trials and apply them to personalized medicine. “Clinical trial results give you an average treatment effect of the patients included, but who are ones who really benefit? Who are the ones that don’t benefit? Who are the ones who are harmed?” Dr. Merchant said. “It’s rare that you can parse out this nicely between the people who both benefit and are less likely to be harmed and the people who don’t benefit and are more likely to be harmed.”
The study received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Kent disclosed relationships with PCORI, W.L. Gore and the Canadian Stroke Consortium. Dr. Merchant has no relevant disclosures.
FROM JAMA
COVID cases spike as questions remain about Omicron’s threat
The best way to stay protected is by getting vaccinated and boosted, they said.
“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death – for yourselves, families, and the hospitals who may soon overwhelm,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said at a news briefing Dec. 17. “We need the American people to do their part.”
The Omicron variant has been detected in at least 39 states and 75 countries, according to CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD.
The strain is more transmissible than the already highly infectious Delta variant, and although there was early evidence that it caused more mild disease, she said that is likely because many of those infected have been vaccinated and boosted.
“Although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks,” Dr. Walensky said.
The United States is averaging close to 1,300 deaths from COVID-19 each day. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are higher now than in the previous winter – before vaccines were so widely available. The New York Times reported on Dec. 17 that new infections in Connecticut and Maine have grown 150% in the past 2 weeks, and Ohio and Indiana are seeing hospitalization rates nearing the worst of 2020-2021’s winter surge.
Dueling reports released recently gave cause for relief and concern about Omicron.
A study from South Africa released on Dec. 14 shows lower hospitalizations during the first 3 weeks of the Omicron wave than during earlier waves from other variants. That’s the good news.
The concerning news is out of the United Kingdom, where Imperial College London reported Dec. 17 that the risk of reinfection with COVID-19 from Omicron is more than 5 times as high and that cases of Omicron-based COVID-19 are doubling every 2 days.
What’s more, the study “finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection. However, hospitalization data remains very limited at this time,” the researchers said.
“We have no evidence that the virus itself is more mild,” Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief of Medscape, told PBS NewsHour. “Until we have that, we have to assume that people who don’t have any protection are highly vulnerable to getting very ill.”
The White House COVID-19 team continues to urge parents and guardians to get their children vaccinated, especially in anticipation of a post-holiday spike. Dr. Walensky said the CDC’s vaccine advisory board met on Dec. 16 to continue the safety discussion about COVID-19 vaccinations in children.
So far, 20 million children under 17 and 5 million under 11 have received their shots.
“Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5-11 years old, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns,” Dr. Walensky said.
Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, highlighted the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted to avoid serious disease from Delta and Omicron.
“We’re in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge,” he said. “The optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The best way to stay protected is by getting vaccinated and boosted, they said.
“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death – for yourselves, families, and the hospitals who may soon overwhelm,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said at a news briefing Dec. 17. “We need the American people to do their part.”
The Omicron variant has been detected in at least 39 states and 75 countries, according to CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD.
The strain is more transmissible than the already highly infectious Delta variant, and although there was early evidence that it caused more mild disease, she said that is likely because many of those infected have been vaccinated and boosted.
“Although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks,” Dr. Walensky said.
The United States is averaging close to 1,300 deaths from COVID-19 each day. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are higher now than in the previous winter – before vaccines were so widely available. The New York Times reported on Dec. 17 that new infections in Connecticut and Maine have grown 150% in the past 2 weeks, and Ohio and Indiana are seeing hospitalization rates nearing the worst of 2020-2021’s winter surge.
Dueling reports released recently gave cause for relief and concern about Omicron.
A study from South Africa released on Dec. 14 shows lower hospitalizations during the first 3 weeks of the Omicron wave than during earlier waves from other variants. That’s the good news.
The concerning news is out of the United Kingdom, where Imperial College London reported Dec. 17 that the risk of reinfection with COVID-19 from Omicron is more than 5 times as high and that cases of Omicron-based COVID-19 are doubling every 2 days.
What’s more, the study “finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection. However, hospitalization data remains very limited at this time,” the researchers said.
“We have no evidence that the virus itself is more mild,” Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief of Medscape, told PBS NewsHour. “Until we have that, we have to assume that people who don’t have any protection are highly vulnerable to getting very ill.”
The White House COVID-19 team continues to urge parents and guardians to get their children vaccinated, especially in anticipation of a post-holiday spike. Dr. Walensky said the CDC’s vaccine advisory board met on Dec. 16 to continue the safety discussion about COVID-19 vaccinations in children.
So far, 20 million children under 17 and 5 million under 11 have received their shots.
“Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5-11 years old, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns,” Dr. Walensky said.
Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, highlighted the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted to avoid serious disease from Delta and Omicron.
“We’re in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge,” he said. “The optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The best way to stay protected is by getting vaccinated and boosted, they said.
“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death – for yourselves, families, and the hospitals who may soon overwhelm,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said at a news briefing Dec. 17. “We need the American people to do their part.”
The Omicron variant has been detected in at least 39 states and 75 countries, according to CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD.
The strain is more transmissible than the already highly infectious Delta variant, and although there was early evidence that it caused more mild disease, she said that is likely because many of those infected have been vaccinated and boosted.
“Although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks,” Dr. Walensky said.
The United States is averaging close to 1,300 deaths from COVID-19 each day. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are higher now than in the previous winter – before vaccines were so widely available. The New York Times reported on Dec. 17 that new infections in Connecticut and Maine have grown 150% in the past 2 weeks, and Ohio and Indiana are seeing hospitalization rates nearing the worst of 2020-2021’s winter surge.
Dueling reports released recently gave cause for relief and concern about Omicron.
A study from South Africa released on Dec. 14 shows lower hospitalizations during the first 3 weeks of the Omicron wave than during earlier waves from other variants. That’s the good news.
The concerning news is out of the United Kingdom, where Imperial College London reported Dec. 17 that the risk of reinfection with COVID-19 from Omicron is more than 5 times as high and that cases of Omicron-based COVID-19 are doubling every 2 days.
What’s more, the study “finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection. However, hospitalization data remains very limited at this time,” the researchers said.
“We have no evidence that the virus itself is more mild,” Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief of Medscape, told PBS NewsHour. “Until we have that, we have to assume that people who don’t have any protection are highly vulnerable to getting very ill.”
The White House COVID-19 team continues to urge parents and guardians to get their children vaccinated, especially in anticipation of a post-holiday spike. Dr. Walensky said the CDC’s vaccine advisory board met on Dec. 16 to continue the safety discussion about COVID-19 vaccinations in children.
So far, 20 million children under 17 and 5 million under 11 have received their shots.
“Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5-11 years old, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns,” Dr. Walensky said.
Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, highlighted the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted to avoid serious disease from Delta and Omicron.
“We’re in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge,” he said. “The optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Small myocarditis risk now seen for adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccine
The first large population study to investigate the association between different COVID-19 vaccines types and cardiac effects and adverse events shows a small increase in the risk for acute myocarditis with both the mRNA-based vaccines and – in what may a first in the literature – an adenovirus-vector vaccine.
The excess risk was seen following the first dose of the ChAdOc1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), the adenovirus-based vaccine, and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). It was observed after first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine.
The incidence rate ratios for myocarditis 1-7 days after the first AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna injections were 1.76, 1.45, and 8.38, respectively, and 23.1 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.
“There’s a bit more uncertainty and worry about mRNA vaccines because it’s quite a new vector for vaccination and, therefore, there’s been more focus on the potential side effects,” said Nicholas Mills, MD.
“But it doesn’t surprise me the signal is present for all types of vaccines because they’re designed to generate a systemic immune response and that is, unfortunately, where you can cause small risks for immune-mediated illnesses like myocarditis,” Dr. Mills, from the University of Edinburgh, told this news organization. Dr. Mills is a coauthor on the study, published Dec. 14 in Nature Medicine.
To put the risks in context, the group estimated between 1 and 10 additional myocarditis hospitalizations or deaths per 1 million people vaccinated, but 40 excess myocarditis events per million following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.
As reported, rates of excess myocarditis events associated with a first dose were 2 per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1 per million for the Pfizer vaccine, and 6 per million with the Moderna vaccine.
Following a second dose, there were 10 additional myocarditis events per million people receiving the Moderna vaccine and none among recipients of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines.
“It was particularly seen within the first 7 days of the first dose, which is very consistent with what we see in people who have viral myocarditis,” Dr. Mills said. “So it looks like a real signal but it’s very small.”
The results are in line with previous studies of the Pfizer vaccine in Israel and studies of the Moderna vaccine in the United States, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.
“What this paper does is confirm that cardiovascular complications – and they are only looking at a small component of those cardiovascular complications – are markedly higher with the COVID-19 infection than with the vaccines,” she said.
It also adds a new twist to the search for the mechanisms of myocarditis, which has focused on the immunogenicity of the RNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but also hypothesized that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and cell antigens, antibody production against cardiac proteins, and testosterone may play a role.
“But now it doesn’t look like the risk is solely confined to the mRNA vaccine platform because it’s also happening with the adenovirus,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “The mechanisms require future experimental and clinical research and we’ll need more granular data with cohorts that are closely followed up as well as subclinical follow-up.”
James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry, said he was also not surprised by a myocarditis signal with AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vaccine.
“Looking at relative risks has biological implications, but the clinical and public health implications are that the absolute risk with the adenovirus is trivial. And you see that with their estimations of absolute risk where it’s literally sort of a needle in the haystack of 1 or 2 per million,” he said in an interview.
Large-scale data
The investigators examined the rates of hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection by linking the English National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination with a national patient-level health care database of 38.6 million people, aged 16 years or older, vaccinated from Dec.1, 2020, to Aug. 24, 2021.
The number of people admitted to the hospital or who died during the study period was 1,615 for myocarditis, 1,574 for pericarditis, and 385,508 for cardiac arrhythmia.
There was no evidence of an increased risk for pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia following vaccination, except for arrhythmia in the 28 days following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (IRR, 1.46).
In contrast, the risk was increased for pericarditis (IRR, 2.79) and cardiac arrhythmia (IRR, 5.35) in the 28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.
Although the scale of the analysis allows for more precise estimates than what’s been possible in smaller data sets, there is the challenge of diagnosing COVID-19 from billing codes and the potential for ascertainment bias, noted Dr. de Lemos.
“Having said that, I think it’s a really important study, because it’s the first study to put the incidence in context in the same general population the risks of myocarditis with various vaccines and with COVID-19,” he said.
“That’s really important and provides a lot of reassurance for those who are trying to balance the risks and benefits of vaccination.”
Analyses by sex and age
A subgroup analysis by age showed increased risks for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccines only in those younger than 40, whereas no association was found with the Oxford adenovirus vaccine.
“We’re not seeing any signal here that would make us change the recommendation for vaccination in children as a consequence of this risk,” Dr. Mills said during a press briefing.
Dr. Bozkurt pointed out, however, that the estimated excess in myocarditis events following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in these younger adults reportedly exceeded that for SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 per million vs. 10 per million).
“For that age group, it’s concerning and needs further clarification. This hasn’t been seen before,” she said.
The average age was 39 years for those receiving two doses of the Moderna vaccine and 55 for recipients of the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines. The Moderna vaccine wasn’t rolled out until April 2021 in the United Kingdom, the authors noted, so the number of patients who received this vaccine is lower.
Although reports have suggested young males are at greater risk for myocarditis after vaccination, an analysis by sex found that women had an increased risk for myocarditis after a first dose of the AstraZeneca (IRR, 1.40) and Pfizer (IRR, 1.54) vaccines and following a positive COVID-19 test result (IRR, 11.00).
“Women being at increased risk is rather a new message,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “But the incidence rate ratios are being compared against the unvaccinated, so when you see the increase in women, it doesn’t mean it’s increased against men. It would be helpful for sex-specific incidence rate ratios to be reported for younger age subgroups, such as ages 16-20 and 20-30, to determine whether there’s an increased risk for males compared to females at younger ages.”
Age and sex differences are huge questions, but “I think we’ll learn a lot about myocarditis in general from what is going to be an explosion of research into the vaccine-associated causes,” Dr. de Lemos said.
“That will help us understand myocarditis more broadly and prepare us for the next generation of vaccines, which inevitably will be mRNA based.”
Dr. Mills reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bozkurt reported consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical-events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. De Lemos reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first large population study to investigate the association between different COVID-19 vaccines types and cardiac effects and adverse events shows a small increase in the risk for acute myocarditis with both the mRNA-based vaccines and – in what may a first in the literature – an adenovirus-vector vaccine.
The excess risk was seen following the first dose of the ChAdOc1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), the adenovirus-based vaccine, and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). It was observed after first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine.
The incidence rate ratios for myocarditis 1-7 days after the first AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna injections were 1.76, 1.45, and 8.38, respectively, and 23.1 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.
“There’s a bit more uncertainty and worry about mRNA vaccines because it’s quite a new vector for vaccination and, therefore, there’s been more focus on the potential side effects,” said Nicholas Mills, MD.
“But it doesn’t surprise me the signal is present for all types of vaccines because they’re designed to generate a systemic immune response and that is, unfortunately, where you can cause small risks for immune-mediated illnesses like myocarditis,” Dr. Mills, from the University of Edinburgh, told this news organization. Dr. Mills is a coauthor on the study, published Dec. 14 in Nature Medicine.
To put the risks in context, the group estimated between 1 and 10 additional myocarditis hospitalizations or deaths per 1 million people vaccinated, but 40 excess myocarditis events per million following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.
As reported, rates of excess myocarditis events associated with a first dose were 2 per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1 per million for the Pfizer vaccine, and 6 per million with the Moderna vaccine.
Following a second dose, there were 10 additional myocarditis events per million people receiving the Moderna vaccine and none among recipients of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines.
“It was particularly seen within the first 7 days of the first dose, which is very consistent with what we see in people who have viral myocarditis,” Dr. Mills said. “So it looks like a real signal but it’s very small.”
The results are in line with previous studies of the Pfizer vaccine in Israel and studies of the Moderna vaccine in the United States, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.
“What this paper does is confirm that cardiovascular complications – and they are only looking at a small component of those cardiovascular complications – are markedly higher with the COVID-19 infection than with the vaccines,” she said.
It also adds a new twist to the search for the mechanisms of myocarditis, which has focused on the immunogenicity of the RNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but also hypothesized that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and cell antigens, antibody production against cardiac proteins, and testosterone may play a role.
“But now it doesn’t look like the risk is solely confined to the mRNA vaccine platform because it’s also happening with the adenovirus,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “The mechanisms require future experimental and clinical research and we’ll need more granular data with cohorts that are closely followed up as well as subclinical follow-up.”
James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry, said he was also not surprised by a myocarditis signal with AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vaccine.
“Looking at relative risks has biological implications, but the clinical and public health implications are that the absolute risk with the adenovirus is trivial. And you see that with their estimations of absolute risk where it’s literally sort of a needle in the haystack of 1 or 2 per million,” he said in an interview.
Large-scale data
The investigators examined the rates of hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection by linking the English National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination with a national patient-level health care database of 38.6 million people, aged 16 years or older, vaccinated from Dec.1, 2020, to Aug. 24, 2021.
The number of people admitted to the hospital or who died during the study period was 1,615 for myocarditis, 1,574 for pericarditis, and 385,508 for cardiac arrhythmia.
There was no evidence of an increased risk for pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia following vaccination, except for arrhythmia in the 28 days following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (IRR, 1.46).
In contrast, the risk was increased for pericarditis (IRR, 2.79) and cardiac arrhythmia (IRR, 5.35) in the 28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.
Although the scale of the analysis allows for more precise estimates than what’s been possible in smaller data sets, there is the challenge of diagnosing COVID-19 from billing codes and the potential for ascertainment bias, noted Dr. de Lemos.
“Having said that, I think it’s a really important study, because it’s the first study to put the incidence in context in the same general population the risks of myocarditis with various vaccines and with COVID-19,” he said.
“That’s really important and provides a lot of reassurance for those who are trying to balance the risks and benefits of vaccination.”
Analyses by sex and age
A subgroup analysis by age showed increased risks for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccines only in those younger than 40, whereas no association was found with the Oxford adenovirus vaccine.
“We’re not seeing any signal here that would make us change the recommendation for vaccination in children as a consequence of this risk,” Dr. Mills said during a press briefing.
Dr. Bozkurt pointed out, however, that the estimated excess in myocarditis events following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in these younger adults reportedly exceeded that for SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 per million vs. 10 per million).
“For that age group, it’s concerning and needs further clarification. This hasn’t been seen before,” she said.
The average age was 39 years for those receiving two doses of the Moderna vaccine and 55 for recipients of the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines. The Moderna vaccine wasn’t rolled out until April 2021 in the United Kingdom, the authors noted, so the number of patients who received this vaccine is lower.
Although reports have suggested young males are at greater risk for myocarditis after vaccination, an analysis by sex found that women had an increased risk for myocarditis after a first dose of the AstraZeneca (IRR, 1.40) and Pfizer (IRR, 1.54) vaccines and following a positive COVID-19 test result (IRR, 11.00).
“Women being at increased risk is rather a new message,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “But the incidence rate ratios are being compared against the unvaccinated, so when you see the increase in women, it doesn’t mean it’s increased against men. It would be helpful for sex-specific incidence rate ratios to be reported for younger age subgroups, such as ages 16-20 and 20-30, to determine whether there’s an increased risk for males compared to females at younger ages.”
Age and sex differences are huge questions, but “I think we’ll learn a lot about myocarditis in general from what is going to be an explosion of research into the vaccine-associated causes,” Dr. de Lemos said.
“That will help us understand myocarditis more broadly and prepare us for the next generation of vaccines, which inevitably will be mRNA based.”
Dr. Mills reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bozkurt reported consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical-events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. De Lemos reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first large population study to investigate the association between different COVID-19 vaccines types and cardiac effects and adverse events shows a small increase in the risk for acute myocarditis with both the mRNA-based vaccines and – in what may a first in the literature – an adenovirus-vector vaccine.
The excess risk was seen following the first dose of the ChAdOc1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), the adenovirus-based vaccine, and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). It was observed after first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine.
The incidence rate ratios for myocarditis 1-7 days after the first AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna injections were 1.76, 1.45, and 8.38, respectively, and 23.1 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.
“There’s a bit more uncertainty and worry about mRNA vaccines because it’s quite a new vector for vaccination and, therefore, there’s been more focus on the potential side effects,” said Nicholas Mills, MD.
“But it doesn’t surprise me the signal is present for all types of vaccines because they’re designed to generate a systemic immune response and that is, unfortunately, where you can cause small risks for immune-mediated illnesses like myocarditis,” Dr. Mills, from the University of Edinburgh, told this news organization. Dr. Mills is a coauthor on the study, published Dec. 14 in Nature Medicine.
To put the risks in context, the group estimated between 1 and 10 additional myocarditis hospitalizations or deaths per 1 million people vaccinated, but 40 excess myocarditis events per million following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.
As reported, rates of excess myocarditis events associated with a first dose were 2 per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1 per million for the Pfizer vaccine, and 6 per million with the Moderna vaccine.
Following a second dose, there were 10 additional myocarditis events per million people receiving the Moderna vaccine and none among recipients of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines.
“It was particularly seen within the first 7 days of the first dose, which is very consistent with what we see in people who have viral myocarditis,” Dr. Mills said. “So it looks like a real signal but it’s very small.”
The results are in line with previous studies of the Pfizer vaccine in Israel and studies of the Moderna vaccine in the United States, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.
“What this paper does is confirm that cardiovascular complications – and they are only looking at a small component of those cardiovascular complications – are markedly higher with the COVID-19 infection than with the vaccines,” she said.
It also adds a new twist to the search for the mechanisms of myocarditis, which has focused on the immunogenicity of the RNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but also hypothesized that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and cell antigens, antibody production against cardiac proteins, and testosterone may play a role.
“But now it doesn’t look like the risk is solely confined to the mRNA vaccine platform because it’s also happening with the adenovirus,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “The mechanisms require future experimental and clinical research and we’ll need more granular data with cohorts that are closely followed up as well as subclinical follow-up.”
James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry, said he was also not surprised by a myocarditis signal with AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vaccine.
“Looking at relative risks has biological implications, but the clinical and public health implications are that the absolute risk with the adenovirus is trivial. And you see that with their estimations of absolute risk where it’s literally sort of a needle in the haystack of 1 or 2 per million,” he said in an interview.
Large-scale data
The investigators examined the rates of hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection by linking the English National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination with a national patient-level health care database of 38.6 million people, aged 16 years or older, vaccinated from Dec.1, 2020, to Aug. 24, 2021.
The number of people admitted to the hospital or who died during the study period was 1,615 for myocarditis, 1,574 for pericarditis, and 385,508 for cardiac arrhythmia.
There was no evidence of an increased risk for pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia following vaccination, except for arrhythmia in the 28 days following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (IRR, 1.46).
In contrast, the risk was increased for pericarditis (IRR, 2.79) and cardiac arrhythmia (IRR, 5.35) in the 28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.
Although the scale of the analysis allows for more precise estimates than what’s been possible in smaller data sets, there is the challenge of diagnosing COVID-19 from billing codes and the potential for ascertainment bias, noted Dr. de Lemos.
“Having said that, I think it’s a really important study, because it’s the first study to put the incidence in context in the same general population the risks of myocarditis with various vaccines and with COVID-19,” he said.
“That’s really important and provides a lot of reassurance for those who are trying to balance the risks and benefits of vaccination.”
Analyses by sex and age
A subgroup analysis by age showed increased risks for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccines only in those younger than 40, whereas no association was found with the Oxford adenovirus vaccine.
“We’re not seeing any signal here that would make us change the recommendation for vaccination in children as a consequence of this risk,” Dr. Mills said during a press briefing.
Dr. Bozkurt pointed out, however, that the estimated excess in myocarditis events following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in these younger adults reportedly exceeded that for SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 per million vs. 10 per million).
“For that age group, it’s concerning and needs further clarification. This hasn’t been seen before,” she said.
The average age was 39 years for those receiving two doses of the Moderna vaccine and 55 for recipients of the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines. The Moderna vaccine wasn’t rolled out until April 2021 in the United Kingdom, the authors noted, so the number of patients who received this vaccine is lower.
Although reports have suggested young males are at greater risk for myocarditis after vaccination, an analysis by sex found that women had an increased risk for myocarditis after a first dose of the AstraZeneca (IRR, 1.40) and Pfizer (IRR, 1.54) vaccines and following a positive COVID-19 test result (IRR, 11.00).
“Women being at increased risk is rather a new message,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “But the incidence rate ratios are being compared against the unvaccinated, so when you see the increase in women, it doesn’t mean it’s increased against men. It would be helpful for sex-specific incidence rate ratios to be reported for younger age subgroups, such as ages 16-20 and 20-30, to determine whether there’s an increased risk for males compared to females at younger ages.”
Age and sex differences are huge questions, but “I think we’ll learn a lot about myocarditis in general from what is going to be an explosion of research into the vaccine-associated causes,” Dr. de Lemos said.
“That will help us understand myocarditis more broadly and prepare us for the next generation of vaccines, which inevitably will be mRNA based.”
Dr. Mills reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bozkurt reported consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical-events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. De Lemos reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
Fitusiran: Great ‘leap forward’ in hemophilia treatment
Fitusiran is a small interfering RNA molecule that blocks antithrombin production in liver cells. Instead of taking the traditional approach in hemophilia treatment of boosting the coagulation cascade by replacing what’s missing, the idea of fitusiran is to short circuit the body’s anticoagulation system by targeting antithrombin.
Patients in two trials presented at the meeting, ATLAS-A/B and ATLAS-INH, had about a 90% reduction in their annualized bleeding rates when treated with prophylactic fitusiran, with half or more having no bleeds that required treatment during the 9-month trials. The median annualized bleeding rate fell to 0, trial investigators reported at the meeting.
These findings held in both hemophilia A and B with and without inhibitors, which are antibodies formed against exogenous clotting factors, and on subanalysis of spontaneous and joint bleeding rates. Reduced bleeding was associated with substantial improvements in health-care related quality of life, particularly in the physical health domain.
A question about study design
An audience member at ASH noted that the trials didn’t compare fitusiran against prophylactic treatment, which is standard of care for hemophilia, but rather against episodic treatment – concentrated factors or bypassing agents in subjects with inhibitors – once subjects in the control groups started to bleed.
Still, the numbers reported in the studies “have never been achieved with standard prophylaxis in the past.” Furthermore, standard prophylaxis requires lifelong intravenous infusions, sometimes several a week, said lead ATLAS-A/B investigator Alok Srivastava, MD, a hematologist at the Christian Medical College in Vellore, India.
Fitusiran was dosed in the studies as a once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous injection, so is much less bothersome. Also, it seems likely that some patients will only need dosing every other month. Maker Sanofi Genzyme is exploring lower and less frequent dosing to reduce thrombotic event risks that emerged in earlier studies, said Steven Pipe, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the senior investigator on ATLAS-A/B, which assessed fitusiran in patients without inhibitors.
Serious thrombotic events occurred in two fitusiran patients in the trials, one of which led to discontinuation.
No pricing information
Overall, “I think [fitusiran] is a tremendous leap forward” with “the opportunity to transform the day-to-day lives of patients,” particularly those with hemophilia B, who have limited treatment options, Dr. Pipe said.
If approved for the U.S. market, fitusiran will go up against the monoclonal antibody emicizumab (Hemlibra), a subcutaneous injection dosed weekly to monthly that mimics the function of factor VIII, so it’s approved only for hemophilia A with or without inhibitors.
Several audience members at ASH noted that a major consideration for fitusiran, if approved, will be its cost. There’s no pricing information yet, but annual list price for emicizumab is reported to be in the $500,000 range.
For hemophilia A, “it will come to what proves to be the most efficacious and safe, with also consideration given to pricing,” Nigel Key, MD, a hematologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a comment.
Trial details
In ATLAS-A/B, 80 male patients were randomized to prophylactic fitusiran once monthly and 40 to continue with clotting factors as needed for bleeding. Just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest hemophilia A. The mean age was 34 years, and subjects had a mean of about 12 bleeds in the 6 months leading up to the study.
Half of the fitusiran group had no treated bleeds during the study period versus only 5% in the control arm.
The five treatment emergent serious adverse events in the fitusiran arm included cholelithiasis in two subjects, plus cholecystitis, lower respiratory tract infection, and asthma in one each. Two fitusiran patients discontinued treatment because of cholecystitis and increased alanine aminotransferase.
ATLAS-INH had the same study design, and investigated patients with inhibitors; again, just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest A. Mean age was 28 years, and patients had a mean of about 13 bleeds over the 6 months before the study. A total of 38 subjects were randomized to fitusiran, and 19 to bypassing agents as needed.
Almost 66% of fitusiran patients had no treated bleeds versus about 5% in the control arm.
There “was far less bleeding both for hemophilia A and B. It’s definitely a clinically meaningful and important” effect, said ATLAS-INH lead investigator Guy Young, MD, director of the hemostasis and thrombosis program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
He said the improved quality of life with fitusiran noted in both trials was “not surprising. If you only have to dose once a month subcutaneously, and you are not bleeding, of course your quality of life is going to improve.”
Both fitusiran thrombotic events occurred in ATLAS-INH. One patient developed deep vein thrombosis, subclavian vein thrombosis, and superficial thrombophlebitis but stayed in the study. Another discontinued after developing suspected spinal vessel thrombosis. Serious adverse events among five other subjects included acute cholecystitis and hematuria.
Fitusiran was associated with liver enzyme elevations in both trials, but they were generally mild to moderate.
The studies were funded by fitusiran maker Sanofi Genzyme. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Pipe is a consultant, Dr. Srivastava is a researcher and adviser, and Dr. Young is a speaker and consultant for the company and disclosed honoraria from it. Dr. Key had no relevant disclosures.
Fitusiran is a small interfering RNA molecule that blocks antithrombin production in liver cells. Instead of taking the traditional approach in hemophilia treatment of boosting the coagulation cascade by replacing what’s missing, the idea of fitusiran is to short circuit the body’s anticoagulation system by targeting antithrombin.
Patients in two trials presented at the meeting, ATLAS-A/B and ATLAS-INH, had about a 90% reduction in their annualized bleeding rates when treated with prophylactic fitusiran, with half or more having no bleeds that required treatment during the 9-month trials. The median annualized bleeding rate fell to 0, trial investigators reported at the meeting.
These findings held in both hemophilia A and B with and without inhibitors, which are antibodies formed against exogenous clotting factors, and on subanalysis of spontaneous and joint bleeding rates. Reduced bleeding was associated with substantial improvements in health-care related quality of life, particularly in the physical health domain.
A question about study design
An audience member at ASH noted that the trials didn’t compare fitusiran against prophylactic treatment, which is standard of care for hemophilia, but rather against episodic treatment – concentrated factors or bypassing agents in subjects with inhibitors – once subjects in the control groups started to bleed.
Still, the numbers reported in the studies “have never been achieved with standard prophylaxis in the past.” Furthermore, standard prophylaxis requires lifelong intravenous infusions, sometimes several a week, said lead ATLAS-A/B investigator Alok Srivastava, MD, a hematologist at the Christian Medical College in Vellore, India.
Fitusiran was dosed in the studies as a once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous injection, so is much less bothersome. Also, it seems likely that some patients will only need dosing every other month. Maker Sanofi Genzyme is exploring lower and less frequent dosing to reduce thrombotic event risks that emerged in earlier studies, said Steven Pipe, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the senior investigator on ATLAS-A/B, which assessed fitusiran in patients without inhibitors.
Serious thrombotic events occurred in two fitusiran patients in the trials, one of which led to discontinuation.
No pricing information
Overall, “I think [fitusiran] is a tremendous leap forward” with “the opportunity to transform the day-to-day lives of patients,” particularly those with hemophilia B, who have limited treatment options, Dr. Pipe said.
If approved for the U.S. market, fitusiran will go up against the monoclonal antibody emicizumab (Hemlibra), a subcutaneous injection dosed weekly to monthly that mimics the function of factor VIII, so it’s approved only for hemophilia A with or without inhibitors.
Several audience members at ASH noted that a major consideration for fitusiran, if approved, will be its cost. There’s no pricing information yet, but annual list price for emicizumab is reported to be in the $500,000 range.
For hemophilia A, “it will come to what proves to be the most efficacious and safe, with also consideration given to pricing,” Nigel Key, MD, a hematologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a comment.
Trial details
In ATLAS-A/B, 80 male patients were randomized to prophylactic fitusiran once monthly and 40 to continue with clotting factors as needed for bleeding. Just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest hemophilia A. The mean age was 34 years, and subjects had a mean of about 12 bleeds in the 6 months leading up to the study.
Half of the fitusiran group had no treated bleeds during the study period versus only 5% in the control arm.
The five treatment emergent serious adverse events in the fitusiran arm included cholelithiasis in two subjects, plus cholecystitis, lower respiratory tract infection, and asthma in one each. Two fitusiran patients discontinued treatment because of cholecystitis and increased alanine aminotransferase.
ATLAS-INH had the same study design, and investigated patients with inhibitors; again, just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest A. Mean age was 28 years, and patients had a mean of about 13 bleeds over the 6 months before the study. A total of 38 subjects were randomized to fitusiran, and 19 to bypassing agents as needed.
Almost 66% of fitusiran patients had no treated bleeds versus about 5% in the control arm.
There “was far less bleeding both for hemophilia A and B. It’s definitely a clinically meaningful and important” effect, said ATLAS-INH lead investigator Guy Young, MD, director of the hemostasis and thrombosis program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
He said the improved quality of life with fitusiran noted in both trials was “not surprising. If you only have to dose once a month subcutaneously, and you are not bleeding, of course your quality of life is going to improve.”
Both fitusiran thrombotic events occurred in ATLAS-INH. One patient developed deep vein thrombosis, subclavian vein thrombosis, and superficial thrombophlebitis but stayed in the study. Another discontinued after developing suspected spinal vessel thrombosis. Serious adverse events among five other subjects included acute cholecystitis and hematuria.
Fitusiran was associated with liver enzyme elevations in both trials, but they were generally mild to moderate.
The studies were funded by fitusiran maker Sanofi Genzyme. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Pipe is a consultant, Dr. Srivastava is a researcher and adviser, and Dr. Young is a speaker and consultant for the company and disclosed honoraria from it. Dr. Key had no relevant disclosures.
Fitusiran is a small interfering RNA molecule that blocks antithrombin production in liver cells. Instead of taking the traditional approach in hemophilia treatment of boosting the coagulation cascade by replacing what’s missing, the idea of fitusiran is to short circuit the body’s anticoagulation system by targeting antithrombin.
Patients in two trials presented at the meeting, ATLAS-A/B and ATLAS-INH, had about a 90% reduction in their annualized bleeding rates when treated with prophylactic fitusiran, with half or more having no bleeds that required treatment during the 9-month trials. The median annualized bleeding rate fell to 0, trial investigators reported at the meeting.
These findings held in both hemophilia A and B with and without inhibitors, which are antibodies formed against exogenous clotting factors, and on subanalysis of spontaneous and joint bleeding rates. Reduced bleeding was associated with substantial improvements in health-care related quality of life, particularly in the physical health domain.
A question about study design
An audience member at ASH noted that the trials didn’t compare fitusiran against prophylactic treatment, which is standard of care for hemophilia, but rather against episodic treatment – concentrated factors or bypassing agents in subjects with inhibitors – once subjects in the control groups started to bleed.
Still, the numbers reported in the studies “have never been achieved with standard prophylaxis in the past.” Furthermore, standard prophylaxis requires lifelong intravenous infusions, sometimes several a week, said lead ATLAS-A/B investigator Alok Srivastava, MD, a hematologist at the Christian Medical College in Vellore, India.
Fitusiran was dosed in the studies as a once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous injection, so is much less bothersome. Also, it seems likely that some patients will only need dosing every other month. Maker Sanofi Genzyme is exploring lower and less frequent dosing to reduce thrombotic event risks that emerged in earlier studies, said Steven Pipe, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the senior investigator on ATLAS-A/B, which assessed fitusiran in patients without inhibitors.
Serious thrombotic events occurred in two fitusiran patients in the trials, one of which led to discontinuation.
No pricing information
Overall, “I think [fitusiran] is a tremendous leap forward” with “the opportunity to transform the day-to-day lives of patients,” particularly those with hemophilia B, who have limited treatment options, Dr. Pipe said.
If approved for the U.S. market, fitusiran will go up against the monoclonal antibody emicizumab (Hemlibra), a subcutaneous injection dosed weekly to monthly that mimics the function of factor VIII, so it’s approved only for hemophilia A with or without inhibitors.
Several audience members at ASH noted that a major consideration for fitusiran, if approved, will be its cost. There’s no pricing information yet, but annual list price for emicizumab is reported to be in the $500,000 range.
For hemophilia A, “it will come to what proves to be the most efficacious and safe, with also consideration given to pricing,” Nigel Key, MD, a hematologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a comment.
Trial details
In ATLAS-A/B, 80 male patients were randomized to prophylactic fitusiran once monthly and 40 to continue with clotting factors as needed for bleeding. Just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest hemophilia A. The mean age was 34 years, and subjects had a mean of about 12 bleeds in the 6 months leading up to the study.
Half of the fitusiran group had no treated bleeds during the study period versus only 5% in the control arm.
The five treatment emergent serious adverse events in the fitusiran arm included cholelithiasis in two subjects, plus cholecystitis, lower respiratory tract infection, and asthma in one each. Two fitusiran patients discontinued treatment because of cholecystitis and increased alanine aminotransferase.
ATLAS-INH had the same study design, and investigated patients with inhibitors; again, just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest A. Mean age was 28 years, and patients had a mean of about 13 bleeds over the 6 months before the study. A total of 38 subjects were randomized to fitusiran, and 19 to bypassing agents as needed.
Almost 66% of fitusiran patients had no treated bleeds versus about 5% in the control arm.
There “was far less bleeding both for hemophilia A and B. It’s definitely a clinically meaningful and important” effect, said ATLAS-INH lead investigator Guy Young, MD, director of the hemostasis and thrombosis program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
He said the improved quality of life with fitusiran noted in both trials was “not surprising. If you only have to dose once a month subcutaneously, and you are not bleeding, of course your quality of life is going to improve.”
Both fitusiran thrombotic events occurred in ATLAS-INH. One patient developed deep vein thrombosis, subclavian vein thrombosis, and superficial thrombophlebitis but stayed in the study. Another discontinued after developing suspected spinal vessel thrombosis. Serious adverse events among five other subjects included acute cholecystitis and hematuria.
Fitusiran was associated with liver enzyme elevations in both trials, but they were generally mild to moderate.
The studies were funded by fitusiran maker Sanofi Genzyme. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Pipe is a consultant, Dr. Srivastava is a researcher and adviser, and Dr. Young is a speaker and consultant for the company and disclosed honoraria from it. Dr. Key had no relevant disclosures.
FROM ASH 2021
DLBCL: PFS but no OS benefit with polatuzumab-vedotin add-on
Two-year progression free survival (PFS) was 76.7% for the 440 patients randomized to polatuzumab-vedotin (PV) add-on, versus 70.2% for the 439 randomized to R-CHOP, which translated to a 27% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death (P = .02). However, overall survival (OS) at 2 years was just under 89% in both arms of the trial, dubbed POLARIX. Toxicity was comparable between the two arms.
The investigators swapped out the vincristine in R-CHOP for PV to avoid overlapping neurotoxic side effects and called their modified regimen “pola-R-CHP.”
“We believe these results support use of pola-R-CHP in the initial management of patients with DLBCL,” senior investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Cancer Center in New York, said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
The study (ASH 2021 abstract LBA-1), was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Worth the cost?
The investigators reported that the median follow up of 28.2 months may simply have been too short to see if the PFS benefit translates into better overall survival. Also, newer treatments for relapsed/refractory disease might have masked any OS benefit.
With the PFS benefit, however, “what we think we are seeing is a deeper, more profound complete remission that hopefully will translate into [better] overall survival, but it may be a while until that can be demonstrated,” said Jane N. Winter, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, who moderated Dr. Salles’ presentation.
“If the improvement in PFS at 2 years represents a true higher cure rate and plateau rather than a simple delay in relapse,” the “results from the POLARIX trial are likely to be practice-changing,” blood cancer specialist Ajay K. Gopal, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization when asked for comment.
With additional OS results pending, an audience member at ASH wondered if “the cost of this highly expensive monoclonal antibody drug conjugate is worth the small improvement in PFS.”
“We have to further study this point, but at this moment what is important is to have a treatment with better efficacy and no more toxicity” than R-CHOP, lead investigator Herve Tilly, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the University of Rouen, France, said at the meeting.
Dr. Gopal said the cost concerns are legitimate, but also pointed out that they “may be somewhat offset by the potential reduction in downstream use of expensive cellular therapies.”
The findings support his assertion. With reduced PFS, R-CHOP subjects were more likely than were pola-R-CHP subjects to go on to subsequent lines of therapy (30.3% versus 22.5%).
PV is already approved in the United States for relapsed or refractory DLBCL in combination with bendamustine and rituximab after failure of at least two previous regimens.
Defining a target population
R-CHOP – rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – has been the first-line standard of care for DLBCL for 2 decades, but it cures only about 60%-70% of patients. Researchers have tried for years to improve the cure rate by adding novel agents and other means, but outcomes haven’t been clinically meaningful, the investigators explained.
Polatuzumab, the antibody component of PV, zeroes in on a ubiquitous target on mature B-cell lymphomas, delivering vedotin, a potent microtubule inhibitor, directly to tumor cells.
Study subjects were treatment naive and a median of 65 years old with intermediate-risk or high-risk DLBCL. About a third had activated B-cell–like DLBCL, and almost two-thirds had baseline International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores between 3 and 5.
Each arm of the trial underwent six treatment cycles, plus two cycles of rituximab monotherapy.
On subgroup analysis, PFS benefit clustered among higher risk patients, namely patients older than 60 years, those with IPI scores between 3 and 5, and patients with the activated B-cell–like subtype.
Younger patients, subjects with lower IPI scores, patients with bulky disease, and those who had germinal-center B-cell–like DLBCL “did not show a clear [PFS] benefit,” the study team said.
Ongoing trial in the elderly
Adverse events in POLARIX were in line with the component drugs’ known toxicity profiles, with no new safety signals identified.
The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (28.3% in the pola-R-CHP group and 30.8% in the R-CHOP group), febrile neutropenia (13.8% and 8.0%, respectively), and anemia (12.0% and 8.4%). A bit over 6% of subjects in both arms discontinued because of adverse events.
The higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with pola-R-CHP “did not translate into a higher overall incidence of infection, treatment discontinuation, or dose reductions,” the investigators said.
They noted that patients with lymphoma arising from previously diagnosed indolent lymphoma, those with a primary mediastinal lymphoma, and people older than 80 years were not included in the study. A phase 3 trial in patients 75 years and up is recruiting.
The work was funded by PV maker Genentech/Roche. Many of the investigators disclosed ties to the companies, including Dr. Tilly, an adviser and speaker for Roche, and Dr. Salles, an adviser for Genentech. Three investigators were Genentech employees. Dr. Gopal is a consultant for Genentech/Roche. Dr. Winter did not have any ties to the companies.
Two-year progression free survival (PFS) was 76.7% for the 440 patients randomized to polatuzumab-vedotin (PV) add-on, versus 70.2% for the 439 randomized to R-CHOP, which translated to a 27% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death (P = .02). However, overall survival (OS) at 2 years was just under 89% in both arms of the trial, dubbed POLARIX. Toxicity was comparable between the two arms.
The investigators swapped out the vincristine in R-CHOP for PV to avoid overlapping neurotoxic side effects and called their modified regimen “pola-R-CHP.”
“We believe these results support use of pola-R-CHP in the initial management of patients with DLBCL,” senior investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Cancer Center in New York, said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
The study (ASH 2021 abstract LBA-1), was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Worth the cost?
The investigators reported that the median follow up of 28.2 months may simply have been too short to see if the PFS benefit translates into better overall survival. Also, newer treatments for relapsed/refractory disease might have masked any OS benefit.
With the PFS benefit, however, “what we think we are seeing is a deeper, more profound complete remission that hopefully will translate into [better] overall survival, but it may be a while until that can be demonstrated,” said Jane N. Winter, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, who moderated Dr. Salles’ presentation.
“If the improvement in PFS at 2 years represents a true higher cure rate and plateau rather than a simple delay in relapse,” the “results from the POLARIX trial are likely to be practice-changing,” blood cancer specialist Ajay K. Gopal, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization when asked for comment.
With additional OS results pending, an audience member at ASH wondered if “the cost of this highly expensive monoclonal antibody drug conjugate is worth the small improvement in PFS.”
“We have to further study this point, but at this moment what is important is to have a treatment with better efficacy and no more toxicity” than R-CHOP, lead investigator Herve Tilly, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the University of Rouen, France, said at the meeting.
Dr. Gopal said the cost concerns are legitimate, but also pointed out that they “may be somewhat offset by the potential reduction in downstream use of expensive cellular therapies.”
The findings support his assertion. With reduced PFS, R-CHOP subjects were more likely than were pola-R-CHP subjects to go on to subsequent lines of therapy (30.3% versus 22.5%).
PV is already approved in the United States for relapsed or refractory DLBCL in combination with bendamustine and rituximab after failure of at least two previous regimens.
Defining a target population
R-CHOP – rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – has been the first-line standard of care for DLBCL for 2 decades, but it cures only about 60%-70% of patients. Researchers have tried for years to improve the cure rate by adding novel agents and other means, but outcomes haven’t been clinically meaningful, the investigators explained.
Polatuzumab, the antibody component of PV, zeroes in on a ubiquitous target on mature B-cell lymphomas, delivering vedotin, a potent microtubule inhibitor, directly to tumor cells.
Study subjects were treatment naive and a median of 65 years old with intermediate-risk or high-risk DLBCL. About a third had activated B-cell–like DLBCL, and almost two-thirds had baseline International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores between 3 and 5.
Each arm of the trial underwent six treatment cycles, plus two cycles of rituximab monotherapy.
On subgroup analysis, PFS benefit clustered among higher risk patients, namely patients older than 60 years, those with IPI scores between 3 and 5, and patients with the activated B-cell–like subtype.
Younger patients, subjects with lower IPI scores, patients with bulky disease, and those who had germinal-center B-cell–like DLBCL “did not show a clear [PFS] benefit,” the study team said.
Ongoing trial in the elderly
Adverse events in POLARIX were in line with the component drugs’ known toxicity profiles, with no new safety signals identified.
The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (28.3% in the pola-R-CHP group and 30.8% in the R-CHOP group), febrile neutropenia (13.8% and 8.0%, respectively), and anemia (12.0% and 8.4%). A bit over 6% of subjects in both arms discontinued because of adverse events.
The higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with pola-R-CHP “did not translate into a higher overall incidence of infection, treatment discontinuation, or dose reductions,” the investigators said.
They noted that patients with lymphoma arising from previously diagnosed indolent lymphoma, those with a primary mediastinal lymphoma, and people older than 80 years were not included in the study. A phase 3 trial in patients 75 years and up is recruiting.
The work was funded by PV maker Genentech/Roche. Many of the investigators disclosed ties to the companies, including Dr. Tilly, an adviser and speaker for Roche, and Dr. Salles, an adviser for Genentech. Three investigators were Genentech employees. Dr. Gopal is a consultant for Genentech/Roche. Dr. Winter did not have any ties to the companies.
Two-year progression free survival (PFS) was 76.7% for the 440 patients randomized to polatuzumab-vedotin (PV) add-on, versus 70.2% for the 439 randomized to R-CHOP, which translated to a 27% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death (P = .02). However, overall survival (OS) at 2 years was just under 89% in both arms of the trial, dubbed POLARIX. Toxicity was comparable between the two arms.
The investigators swapped out the vincristine in R-CHOP for PV to avoid overlapping neurotoxic side effects and called their modified regimen “pola-R-CHP.”
“We believe these results support use of pola-R-CHP in the initial management of patients with DLBCL,” senior investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Cancer Center in New York, said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
The study (ASH 2021 abstract LBA-1), was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Worth the cost?
The investigators reported that the median follow up of 28.2 months may simply have been too short to see if the PFS benefit translates into better overall survival. Also, newer treatments for relapsed/refractory disease might have masked any OS benefit.
With the PFS benefit, however, “what we think we are seeing is a deeper, more profound complete remission that hopefully will translate into [better] overall survival, but it may be a while until that can be demonstrated,” said Jane N. Winter, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, who moderated Dr. Salles’ presentation.
“If the improvement in PFS at 2 years represents a true higher cure rate and plateau rather than a simple delay in relapse,” the “results from the POLARIX trial are likely to be practice-changing,” blood cancer specialist Ajay K. Gopal, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization when asked for comment.
With additional OS results pending, an audience member at ASH wondered if “the cost of this highly expensive monoclonal antibody drug conjugate is worth the small improvement in PFS.”
“We have to further study this point, but at this moment what is important is to have a treatment with better efficacy and no more toxicity” than R-CHOP, lead investigator Herve Tilly, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the University of Rouen, France, said at the meeting.
Dr. Gopal said the cost concerns are legitimate, but also pointed out that they “may be somewhat offset by the potential reduction in downstream use of expensive cellular therapies.”
The findings support his assertion. With reduced PFS, R-CHOP subjects were more likely than were pola-R-CHP subjects to go on to subsequent lines of therapy (30.3% versus 22.5%).
PV is already approved in the United States for relapsed or refractory DLBCL in combination with bendamustine and rituximab after failure of at least two previous regimens.
Defining a target population
R-CHOP – rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – has been the first-line standard of care for DLBCL for 2 decades, but it cures only about 60%-70% of patients. Researchers have tried for years to improve the cure rate by adding novel agents and other means, but outcomes haven’t been clinically meaningful, the investigators explained.
Polatuzumab, the antibody component of PV, zeroes in on a ubiquitous target on mature B-cell lymphomas, delivering vedotin, a potent microtubule inhibitor, directly to tumor cells.
Study subjects were treatment naive and a median of 65 years old with intermediate-risk or high-risk DLBCL. About a third had activated B-cell–like DLBCL, and almost two-thirds had baseline International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores between 3 and 5.
Each arm of the trial underwent six treatment cycles, plus two cycles of rituximab monotherapy.
On subgroup analysis, PFS benefit clustered among higher risk patients, namely patients older than 60 years, those with IPI scores between 3 and 5, and patients with the activated B-cell–like subtype.
Younger patients, subjects with lower IPI scores, patients with bulky disease, and those who had germinal-center B-cell–like DLBCL “did not show a clear [PFS] benefit,” the study team said.
Ongoing trial in the elderly
Adverse events in POLARIX were in line with the component drugs’ known toxicity profiles, with no new safety signals identified.
The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (28.3% in the pola-R-CHP group and 30.8% in the R-CHOP group), febrile neutropenia (13.8% and 8.0%, respectively), and anemia (12.0% and 8.4%). A bit over 6% of subjects in both arms discontinued because of adverse events.
The higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with pola-R-CHP “did not translate into a higher overall incidence of infection, treatment discontinuation, or dose reductions,” the investigators said.
They noted that patients with lymphoma arising from previously diagnosed indolent lymphoma, those with a primary mediastinal lymphoma, and people older than 80 years were not included in the study. A phase 3 trial in patients 75 years and up is recruiting.
The work was funded by PV maker Genentech/Roche. Many of the investigators disclosed ties to the companies, including Dr. Tilly, an adviser and speaker for Roche, and Dr. Salles, an adviser for Genentech. Three investigators were Genentech employees. Dr. Gopal is a consultant for Genentech/Roche. Dr. Winter did not have any ties to the companies.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2021
CDC panel backs mRNA COVID vaccines over J&J because of clot risk
because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.
In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.
The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.
The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said
Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.
In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.
For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.
The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.
About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.
In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.
The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.
The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said
Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.
In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.
For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.
The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.
About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.
In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.
The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.
The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said
Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.
In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.
For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.
The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.
About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Telemedicine helps SCD patients survive COVID, but more need access
ATLANTA – , according to an investigator at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
During the first COVID-19 wave in the summer of 2020, Atlanta’s Grady Sickle Cell Center, the nation’s largest adult sickle cell center, recorded two deaths among the 20 COVID-19_infected patients seen there, said Fuad El Rassi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta.
Virtual visits, launched to deliver health care needs in the wake of a Georgia’s 2020 statewide shelter-in-place order, helped protect patients from COVID-19 infection, Dr. El Rassi said in a press conference at the meeting.
“The patients’ diligence and awareness to stay home during the pandemic have proven crucial to reducing morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population,” he said. “The option of having virtual visits for health care delivery was key and should be utilized further in sickle cell care.”
However, virtual visits and other best practices to prevent and treat COVID-19 in patients with sickle cell disease can be challenging to implement outside of large, specialized centers such as Grady.
“The majority of sickle cell patients in major metropolitan areas are not plugged into dedicated sickle cell centers, and that’s a key issue,” said Dr. El Rassi.
“There’s a huge shortage of such clinics around major metropolitan areas, and that restricts things for the general population, unfortunately.”
COVID-19 prevention remains a challenge, no matter where patients are treated. Only about 50% of the center’s sickle cell disease patients are immunized, according to Dr. El Rassi, who added that assessment of vaccine response among those patients is ongoing.
Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, a sickle cell disease specialist, said long-term sustainability of virtual visits depends greatly on states’ continuation of laws or policies that facilitate access to telemedicine. A total of 22 states changed laws or policies during the pandemic to promote access to telemedicine, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
Virtual care is more challenging in states where expanded telemedicine coverage is not available or is ended, said Dr. Osunkwo, director of the Sickle Cell Enterprise at Levine Cancer Institute. The institute is part of Atrium Health, a large health system that operates in four states.
“We are no longer able to do virtual visits for our South Carolinian patients, even though across the border in North Carolina, you can still provide virtual care,” Dr. Osunkwo said in an interview.
“Sickle cell patients suffer from social determinants [of health], so getting to their doctor when they have a regular outpatient visit is kind of hard,” she added. “And having that virtual option actually makes them more adherent, and they have better access to care overall.”
In the study presented at the ASH meeting by Dr. El Rassi and colleagues, there were a total of 55 patients with COVID-19 among the 1,343 sickle cell disease patients they tracked. Of the 55 patients with COVID-19, 28 were female and 27 were male, and 35% were on hydroxyurea for disease modification.
Among these 55 patients with COVID-19, 44 (80%) were hospitalized, and the hospitalizations of 15 (27%) were deemed related to COVID-19 signs and symptoms, Dr. El Rassi said. Twelve of the 55 patients (22%) had emergency visits, including 5 (9%) because of COVID-19 symptoms, he added.
The two deaths from COVID-19 occurred in June and July 2020, said Dr. El Rassi, adding that those patients were among 20 total cases diagnosed from March to September of 2020.
Over the second reported wave of COVID-19, from October 2020 to March 2021, there were no deaths seen among 35 total COVID-19 cases, according to the report at the ASH meeting.
In an interview, Kaitlin Strumph, MD, a sickle cell disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in New York, noted that patients with sickle cell disease who contract COVID-19 are considered at high risk for morbidity and mortality.
“Patients and providers should not let down their guard,” Dr. Strumph said in an interview. “The best way to protect people from COVID-19 right now is prevention, and vaccinations are the key to further improving outcomes.”
Virtual visits can help bridge gaps in care for patients with sickle cell disease, said Dr. Strumph, given that limited access to care is a large driver of health disparities in this population.
“Telemedicine allows patients to stay home and limit their exposure to COVID-19 out in the community and at the hospital,” she said. “I think most providers feel confident that virtual visits are a huge benefit for the community, and we hope they are here to stay.”
Dr. El Rassi reported disclosures related to Cyclerion, Novartis, Pfizer, Global Blood Therapeutics and bluebird bio.
ATLANTA – , according to an investigator at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
During the first COVID-19 wave in the summer of 2020, Atlanta’s Grady Sickle Cell Center, the nation’s largest adult sickle cell center, recorded two deaths among the 20 COVID-19_infected patients seen there, said Fuad El Rassi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta.
Virtual visits, launched to deliver health care needs in the wake of a Georgia’s 2020 statewide shelter-in-place order, helped protect patients from COVID-19 infection, Dr. El Rassi said in a press conference at the meeting.
“The patients’ diligence and awareness to stay home during the pandemic have proven crucial to reducing morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population,” he said. “The option of having virtual visits for health care delivery was key and should be utilized further in sickle cell care.”
However, virtual visits and other best practices to prevent and treat COVID-19 in patients with sickle cell disease can be challenging to implement outside of large, specialized centers such as Grady.
“The majority of sickle cell patients in major metropolitan areas are not plugged into dedicated sickle cell centers, and that’s a key issue,” said Dr. El Rassi.
“There’s a huge shortage of such clinics around major metropolitan areas, and that restricts things for the general population, unfortunately.”
COVID-19 prevention remains a challenge, no matter where patients are treated. Only about 50% of the center’s sickle cell disease patients are immunized, according to Dr. El Rassi, who added that assessment of vaccine response among those patients is ongoing.
Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, a sickle cell disease specialist, said long-term sustainability of virtual visits depends greatly on states’ continuation of laws or policies that facilitate access to telemedicine. A total of 22 states changed laws or policies during the pandemic to promote access to telemedicine, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
Virtual care is more challenging in states where expanded telemedicine coverage is not available or is ended, said Dr. Osunkwo, director of the Sickle Cell Enterprise at Levine Cancer Institute. The institute is part of Atrium Health, a large health system that operates in four states.
“We are no longer able to do virtual visits for our South Carolinian patients, even though across the border in North Carolina, you can still provide virtual care,” Dr. Osunkwo said in an interview.
“Sickle cell patients suffer from social determinants [of health], so getting to their doctor when they have a regular outpatient visit is kind of hard,” she added. “And having that virtual option actually makes them more adherent, and they have better access to care overall.”
In the study presented at the ASH meeting by Dr. El Rassi and colleagues, there were a total of 55 patients with COVID-19 among the 1,343 sickle cell disease patients they tracked. Of the 55 patients with COVID-19, 28 were female and 27 were male, and 35% were on hydroxyurea for disease modification.
Among these 55 patients with COVID-19, 44 (80%) were hospitalized, and the hospitalizations of 15 (27%) were deemed related to COVID-19 signs and symptoms, Dr. El Rassi said. Twelve of the 55 patients (22%) had emergency visits, including 5 (9%) because of COVID-19 symptoms, he added.
The two deaths from COVID-19 occurred in June and July 2020, said Dr. El Rassi, adding that those patients were among 20 total cases diagnosed from March to September of 2020.
Over the second reported wave of COVID-19, from October 2020 to March 2021, there were no deaths seen among 35 total COVID-19 cases, according to the report at the ASH meeting.
In an interview, Kaitlin Strumph, MD, a sickle cell disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in New York, noted that patients with sickle cell disease who contract COVID-19 are considered at high risk for morbidity and mortality.
“Patients and providers should not let down their guard,” Dr. Strumph said in an interview. “The best way to protect people from COVID-19 right now is prevention, and vaccinations are the key to further improving outcomes.”
Virtual visits can help bridge gaps in care for patients with sickle cell disease, said Dr. Strumph, given that limited access to care is a large driver of health disparities in this population.
“Telemedicine allows patients to stay home and limit their exposure to COVID-19 out in the community and at the hospital,” she said. “I think most providers feel confident that virtual visits are a huge benefit for the community, and we hope they are here to stay.”
Dr. El Rassi reported disclosures related to Cyclerion, Novartis, Pfizer, Global Blood Therapeutics and bluebird bio.
ATLANTA – , according to an investigator at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
During the first COVID-19 wave in the summer of 2020, Atlanta’s Grady Sickle Cell Center, the nation’s largest adult sickle cell center, recorded two deaths among the 20 COVID-19_infected patients seen there, said Fuad El Rassi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta.
Virtual visits, launched to deliver health care needs in the wake of a Georgia’s 2020 statewide shelter-in-place order, helped protect patients from COVID-19 infection, Dr. El Rassi said in a press conference at the meeting.
“The patients’ diligence and awareness to stay home during the pandemic have proven crucial to reducing morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population,” he said. “The option of having virtual visits for health care delivery was key and should be utilized further in sickle cell care.”
However, virtual visits and other best practices to prevent and treat COVID-19 in patients with sickle cell disease can be challenging to implement outside of large, specialized centers such as Grady.
“The majority of sickle cell patients in major metropolitan areas are not plugged into dedicated sickle cell centers, and that’s a key issue,” said Dr. El Rassi.
“There’s a huge shortage of such clinics around major metropolitan areas, and that restricts things for the general population, unfortunately.”
COVID-19 prevention remains a challenge, no matter where patients are treated. Only about 50% of the center’s sickle cell disease patients are immunized, according to Dr. El Rassi, who added that assessment of vaccine response among those patients is ongoing.
Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, a sickle cell disease specialist, said long-term sustainability of virtual visits depends greatly on states’ continuation of laws or policies that facilitate access to telemedicine. A total of 22 states changed laws or policies during the pandemic to promote access to telemedicine, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
Virtual care is more challenging in states where expanded telemedicine coverage is not available or is ended, said Dr. Osunkwo, director of the Sickle Cell Enterprise at Levine Cancer Institute. The institute is part of Atrium Health, a large health system that operates in four states.
“We are no longer able to do virtual visits for our South Carolinian patients, even though across the border in North Carolina, you can still provide virtual care,” Dr. Osunkwo said in an interview.
“Sickle cell patients suffer from social determinants [of health], so getting to their doctor when they have a regular outpatient visit is kind of hard,” she added. “And having that virtual option actually makes them more adherent, and they have better access to care overall.”
In the study presented at the ASH meeting by Dr. El Rassi and colleagues, there were a total of 55 patients with COVID-19 among the 1,343 sickle cell disease patients they tracked. Of the 55 patients with COVID-19, 28 were female and 27 were male, and 35% were on hydroxyurea for disease modification.
Among these 55 patients with COVID-19, 44 (80%) were hospitalized, and the hospitalizations of 15 (27%) were deemed related to COVID-19 signs and symptoms, Dr. El Rassi said. Twelve of the 55 patients (22%) had emergency visits, including 5 (9%) because of COVID-19 symptoms, he added.
The two deaths from COVID-19 occurred in June and July 2020, said Dr. El Rassi, adding that those patients were among 20 total cases diagnosed from March to September of 2020.
Over the second reported wave of COVID-19, from October 2020 to March 2021, there were no deaths seen among 35 total COVID-19 cases, according to the report at the ASH meeting.
In an interview, Kaitlin Strumph, MD, a sickle cell disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in New York, noted that patients with sickle cell disease who contract COVID-19 are considered at high risk for morbidity and mortality.
“Patients and providers should not let down their guard,” Dr. Strumph said in an interview. “The best way to protect people from COVID-19 right now is prevention, and vaccinations are the key to further improving outcomes.”
Virtual visits can help bridge gaps in care for patients with sickle cell disease, said Dr. Strumph, given that limited access to care is a large driver of health disparities in this population.
“Telemedicine allows patients to stay home and limit their exposure to COVID-19 out in the community and at the hospital,” she said. “I think most providers feel confident that virtual visits are a huge benefit for the community, and we hope they are here to stay.”
Dr. El Rassi reported disclosures related to Cyclerion, Novartis, Pfizer, Global Blood Therapeutics and bluebird bio.
FROM ASH 2021
Califf plans work on opioids, accelerated approvals on return to FDA
Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.
Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.
Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.
Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.
Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.
Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.
In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”
The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.
People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.
“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.
“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.
Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.
Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.
“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
‘Work to do’ on opioids
Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.
There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.
“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.
Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.
“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.
Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.
At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.
Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.
While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.
The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.
Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.
Question on accelerated approvals
The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.
The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.
The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.
“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.
Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”
Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.
But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.
“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
Worries about the medical supply chain
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.
Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.
This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.
“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.
Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.
Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.
Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.
Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.
Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.
In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”
The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.
People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.
“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.
“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.
Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.
Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.
“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
‘Work to do’ on opioids
Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.
There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.
“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.
Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.
“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.
Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.
At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.
Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.
While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.
The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.
Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.
Question on accelerated approvals
The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.
The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.
The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.
“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.
Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”
Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.
But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.
“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
Worries about the medical supply chain
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.
Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.
This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.
“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.
Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.
Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.
Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.
Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.
Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.
In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”
The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.
People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.
“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.
“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.
Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.
Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.
“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
‘Work to do’ on opioids
Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.
There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.
“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.
Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.
“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.
Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.
At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.
Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.
While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.
The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.
Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.
Question on accelerated approvals
The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.
The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.
The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.
“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.
Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”
Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.
But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.
“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
Worries about the medical supply chain
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.
Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.
This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.
“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.