User login
-
Boxed warnings: Legal risks that many physicians never see coming
Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.
The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.
One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.
This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
What is a ‘boxed warning’?
The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”
In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.
The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
What a boxed warning is not
A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.
A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.
A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.
A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.
A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.
A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.
A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.
A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.
A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
Boxed warning problems for physicians
There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.
Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.
The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.
Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.
Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.
Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.
Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?
Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.
Summary
The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.
Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.
The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.
One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.
This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
What is a ‘boxed warning’?
The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”
In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.
The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
What a boxed warning is not
A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.
A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.
A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.
A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.
A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.
A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.
A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.
A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.
A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
Boxed warning problems for physicians
There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.
Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.
The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.
Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.
Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.
Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.
Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?
Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.
Summary
The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.
Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.
The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.
One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.
This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
What is a ‘boxed warning’?
The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”
In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.
The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
What a boxed warning is not
A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.
A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.
A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.
A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.
A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.
A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.
A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.
A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.
A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
Boxed warning problems for physicians
There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.
Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.
The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.
Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.
Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.
Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.
Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?
Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.
Summary
The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.
Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
80% of Americans research recommendations post-visit
Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.
The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.
The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.
That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.
According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
Caregivers have special issues
Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.
Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.
Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.
For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).
This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
Depending on the internet
Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.
When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.
Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
Access to health records
Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.
One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.
Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.
Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.
Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.
People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.
The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.
The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.
That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.
According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
Caregivers have special issues
Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.
Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.
Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.
For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).
This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
Depending on the internet
Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.
When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.
Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
Access to health records
Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.
One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.
Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.
Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.
Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.
People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.
The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.
The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.
That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.
According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
Caregivers have special issues
Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.
Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.
Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.
For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).
This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
Depending on the internet
Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.
When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.
Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
Access to health records
Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.
One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.
Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.
Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.
Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.
People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA authorizes Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for kids
The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.
States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.
Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.
As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.
Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.
There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.
“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.
“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.
States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.
Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.
As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.
Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.
There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.
“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.
“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.
States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.
Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.
As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.
Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.
There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.
“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.
“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA posts new websites on accelerated approvals for cancer drugs
, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.
On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:
- Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.
There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.
Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.
In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.
This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.
“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
Excel files, regular updates
For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.
For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.
The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.
The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.
Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.
“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.
The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.
More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.
“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.
However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals.
These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”
This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.
A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.
Six of these withdrawals happened this year.
There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.
Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.
On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:
- Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.
There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.
Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.
In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.
This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.
“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
Excel files, regular updates
For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.
For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.
The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.
The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.
Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.
“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.
The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.
More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.
“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.
However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals.
These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”
This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.
A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.
Six of these withdrawals happened this year.
There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.
Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.
On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:
- Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.
There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.
Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.
In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.
This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.
“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
Excel files, regular updates
For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.
For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.
The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.
The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.
Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.
“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.
The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.
More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.
“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.
However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals.
These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”
This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.
A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.
Six of these withdrawals happened this year.
There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.
Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One of the keys to success on social media? Entertain and educate the public
Social media isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but
“I admit that I’m somewhat obsessed with it. I kind of blame it on my work as a dermatologist, that I’m trying to grow my social media as well. It’s interesting to me, fascinating, and I want to understand it more. I think that’s the mindset you need to approach it with.”
Perhaps no other public figure in dermatology has enjoyed success in social media more than Dr. Lee, a board-certified dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif. In the fall of 2014, she started using Instagram to provide followers a glimpse into her life as a dermatologist, everything from Mohs surgery and Botox to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. From this she formed her alter ego, “Dr. Pimple Popper,” and became a YouTube sensation, building 7.1 million subscribers over the course of a few years, amounting to 4.5 billion lifetime views. She also grew 12 million followers on TikTok, 4.4 million followers on Instagram, 3 million on Facebook, and more than 139,000 on Twitter. About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age.
During the meeting she offered five social media marketing tips for busy clinicians:
You have to ‘play’ to ‘win.’ Active participation in social media is required to develop followers. “You cannot delegate this content,” Dr. Lee said. “You can hire people to help you or leave the task to a social media-savvy medical assistant in your office, but the content should be your responsibility ultimately, because you are the physician,” she added. Not everyone chooses to participate in social media, but it’s also something not to shy away from out of intimidation. “There is some talent associated with it, but it takes a lot of persistence as well,” she said.
Patients come first. Protect them at all costs. Dr. Lee rarely posts the faces of patients she cares for unless they grant consent in advance. “I try to show the work that I do and the beauty of dermatology,” she said during the meeting, which was named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth?” and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. She added that taking part in social media can help you improve communication skills by engaging with followers who like, share, or respond to the material posted. “When you look back at your posts objectively, you learn about yourself and how you relate to your patients,” she said. “It helps to hone my bedside manner and my skills as a dermatologist.”
Show that you are human. Many dermatologists and other “skin influencers” have established their presence on the Internet and may be direct competitors for patients, but that doesn’t mean you can’t establish your own identity. One way to stand out is by posting content related to your authentic self, such as a photo or video that shows you engaged in a hobby, dining at a favorite restaurant, or visiting a beloved vacation spot. “Your followers don’t want a robot, someone who thinks they’re amazing and can do everything,” said Dr. Lee, who stars in her own TV reality show on TLC. “Show that you have a funny side. You want them to fall in love with you and see a little bit of your world, whatever it might be. Charm the socks off of them.”
Entertain first, educate a close second. The main way you’re going to get people to follow and watch you is to provide some entertainment, “not at the expense of a patient or your practice, though,” she said. “Then you’re going to educate people. We dermatologists have something to teach the world because we are experts on skin, hair, and nails. You want to impart this knowledge in a way that captivates people.” It’s like the sense of accomplishment that comes from learning something new after reading a book or watching a movie, she explained. “You feel good about it, and you can take that knowledge with you somewhere else. I love it when kids come up to me and tell me they know what a lipoma is, what a cyst is, and what psoriasis is because they’ve seen my show, or because they follow me on social media. It’s wonderful because I can see that I’ve educated them.”
Be kind and don’t activate the trolls. Dr. Lee allows positivity and kindness to rule the day on her social media content. “This is what I try to relay to followers, but I also do not engage with the negativity,” she said. “Every now and then, there will be someone who tries to insult what you do or who insults you personally. If you engage with them, it almost invites them to do it more. It almost gives them the ability to fight with you. Try to stay above that; just put out goodness and kindness.”
Several years ago, YouTube and Instagram temporarily shut down Dr. Lee’s accounts because she posted graphic images of skin lesions and procedures – a practice that wasn’t so commonplace at the time. “Don’t just post a graphic image just to be graphic,” she advised. “Make sure it has an educational message associated with it. That will help to validate your content. Posting a warning sign that some images may be graphic could help, too.”
Dr. Lee reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
Social media isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but
“I admit that I’m somewhat obsessed with it. I kind of blame it on my work as a dermatologist, that I’m trying to grow my social media as well. It’s interesting to me, fascinating, and I want to understand it more. I think that’s the mindset you need to approach it with.”
Perhaps no other public figure in dermatology has enjoyed success in social media more than Dr. Lee, a board-certified dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif. In the fall of 2014, she started using Instagram to provide followers a glimpse into her life as a dermatologist, everything from Mohs surgery and Botox to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. From this she formed her alter ego, “Dr. Pimple Popper,” and became a YouTube sensation, building 7.1 million subscribers over the course of a few years, amounting to 4.5 billion lifetime views. She also grew 12 million followers on TikTok, 4.4 million followers on Instagram, 3 million on Facebook, and more than 139,000 on Twitter. About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age.
During the meeting she offered five social media marketing tips for busy clinicians:
You have to ‘play’ to ‘win.’ Active participation in social media is required to develop followers. “You cannot delegate this content,” Dr. Lee said. “You can hire people to help you or leave the task to a social media-savvy medical assistant in your office, but the content should be your responsibility ultimately, because you are the physician,” she added. Not everyone chooses to participate in social media, but it’s also something not to shy away from out of intimidation. “There is some talent associated with it, but it takes a lot of persistence as well,” she said.
Patients come first. Protect them at all costs. Dr. Lee rarely posts the faces of patients she cares for unless they grant consent in advance. “I try to show the work that I do and the beauty of dermatology,” she said during the meeting, which was named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth?” and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. She added that taking part in social media can help you improve communication skills by engaging with followers who like, share, or respond to the material posted. “When you look back at your posts objectively, you learn about yourself and how you relate to your patients,” she said. “It helps to hone my bedside manner and my skills as a dermatologist.”
Show that you are human. Many dermatologists and other “skin influencers” have established their presence on the Internet and may be direct competitors for patients, but that doesn’t mean you can’t establish your own identity. One way to stand out is by posting content related to your authentic self, such as a photo or video that shows you engaged in a hobby, dining at a favorite restaurant, or visiting a beloved vacation spot. “Your followers don’t want a robot, someone who thinks they’re amazing and can do everything,” said Dr. Lee, who stars in her own TV reality show on TLC. “Show that you have a funny side. You want them to fall in love with you and see a little bit of your world, whatever it might be. Charm the socks off of them.”
Entertain first, educate a close second. The main way you’re going to get people to follow and watch you is to provide some entertainment, “not at the expense of a patient or your practice, though,” she said. “Then you’re going to educate people. We dermatologists have something to teach the world because we are experts on skin, hair, and nails. You want to impart this knowledge in a way that captivates people.” It’s like the sense of accomplishment that comes from learning something new after reading a book or watching a movie, she explained. “You feel good about it, and you can take that knowledge with you somewhere else. I love it when kids come up to me and tell me they know what a lipoma is, what a cyst is, and what psoriasis is because they’ve seen my show, or because they follow me on social media. It’s wonderful because I can see that I’ve educated them.”
Be kind and don’t activate the trolls. Dr. Lee allows positivity and kindness to rule the day on her social media content. “This is what I try to relay to followers, but I also do not engage with the negativity,” she said. “Every now and then, there will be someone who tries to insult what you do or who insults you personally. If you engage with them, it almost invites them to do it more. It almost gives them the ability to fight with you. Try to stay above that; just put out goodness and kindness.”
Several years ago, YouTube and Instagram temporarily shut down Dr. Lee’s accounts because she posted graphic images of skin lesions and procedures – a practice that wasn’t so commonplace at the time. “Don’t just post a graphic image just to be graphic,” she advised. “Make sure it has an educational message associated with it. That will help to validate your content. Posting a warning sign that some images may be graphic could help, too.”
Dr. Lee reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
Social media isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but
“I admit that I’m somewhat obsessed with it. I kind of blame it on my work as a dermatologist, that I’m trying to grow my social media as well. It’s interesting to me, fascinating, and I want to understand it more. I think that’s the mindset you need to approach it with.”
Perhaps no other public figure in dermatology has enjoyed success in social media more than Dr. Lee, a board-certified dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif. In the fall of 2014, she started using Instagram to provide followers a glimpse into her life as a dermatologist, everything from Mohs surgery and Botox to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. From this she formed her alter ego, “Dr. Pimple Popper,” and became a YouTube sensation, building 7.1 million subscribers over the course of a few years, amounting to 4.5 billion lifetime views. She also grew 12 million followers on TikTok, 4.4 million followers on Instagram, 3 million on Facebook, and more than 139,000 on Twitter. About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age.
During the meeting she offered five social media marketing tips for busy clinicians:
You have to ‘play’ to ‘win.’ Active participation in social media is required to develop followers. “You cannot delegate this content,” Dr. Lee said. “You can hire people to help you or leave the task to a social media-savvy medical assistant in your office, but the content should be your responsibility ultimately, because you are the physician,” she added. Not everyone chooses to participate in social media, but it’s also something not to shy away from out of intimidation. “There is some talent associated with it, but it takes a lot of persistence as well,” she said.
Patients come first. Protect them at all costs. Dr. Lee rarely posts the faces of patients she cares for unless they grant consent in advance. “I try to show the work that I do and the beauty of dermatology,” she said during the meeting, which was named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth?” and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. She added that taking part in social media can help you improve communication skills by engaging with followers who like, share, or respond to the material posted. “When you look back at your posts objectively, you learn about yourself and how you relate to your patients,” she said. “It helps to hone my bedside manner and my skills as a dermatologist.”
Show that you are human. Many dermatologists and other “skin influencers” have established their presence on the Internet and may be direct competitors for patients, but that doesn’t mean you can’t establish your own identity. One way to stand out is by posting content related to your authentic self, such as a photo or video that shows you engaged in a hobby, dining at a favorite restaurant, or visiting a beloved vacation spot. “Your followers don’t want a robot, someone who thinks they’re amazing and can do everything,” said Dr. Lee, who stars in her own TV reality show on TLC. “Show that you have a funny side. You want them to fall in love with you and see a little bit of your world, whatever it might be. Charm the socks off of them.”
Entertain first, educate a close second. The main way you’re going to get people to follow and watch you is to provide some entertainment, “not at the expense of a patient or your practice, though,” she said. “Then you’re going to educate people. We dermatologists have something to teach the world because we are experts on skin, hair, and nails. You want to impart this knowledge in a way that captivates people.” It’s like the sense of accomplishment that comes from learning something new after reading a book or watching a movie, she explained. “You feel good about it, and you can take that knowledge with you somewhere else. I love it when kids come up to me and tell me they know what a lipoma is, what a cyst is, and what psoriasis is because they’ve seen my show, or because they follow me on social media. It’s wonderful because I can see that I’ve educated them.”
Be kind and don’t activate the trolls. Dr. Lee allows positivity and kindness to rule the day on her social media content. “This is what I try to relay to followers, but I also do not engage with the negativity,” she said. “Every now and then, there will be someone who tries to insult what you do or who insults you personally. If you engage with them, it almost invites them to do it more. It almost gives them the ability to fight with you. Try to stay above that; just put out goodness and kindness.”
Several years ago, YouTube and Instagram temporarily shut down Dr. Lee’s accounts because she posted graphic images of skin lesions and procedures – a practice that wasn’t so commonplace at the time. “Don’t just post a graphic image just to be graphic,” she advised. “Make sure it has an educational message associated with it. That will help to validate your content. Posting a warning sign that some images may be graphic could help, too.”
Dr. Lee reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM A LASER & AESTHETIC SKIN THERAPY COURSE
The devil in the (masking) details
The Devil’s own face covering?
It’s been over a year and a half since the COVID-19 emergency was declared in the United States, and we’ve been starting to wonder what our good friend SARS-CoV-2 has left to give. The collective cynic/optimist in us figures that the insanity can’t last forever, right?
Maybe not forever, but …
A group of parents is suing the Central Bucks (Pa.) School District over school mask mandates, suggesting that the district has no legal authority to enforce such measures. Most of their arguments, Philadelphia Magazine says, are pretty standard stuff: Masks are causing depression, anxiety, and discomfort in their children; masks are a violation of their constitutional rights; and “masks are being used as a control mechanism over the population.”
There are some unusual claims, though. One of the parents, Shannon Harris, said that “wearing masks interferes with their religious duty to spread the word of God and forces them to participate in a satanic ritual,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Philadelphia Magazine decided to check on that “satanic ritual” claim by asking an expert, in this case a spokesperson for the Church of Satan. The Reverend Raul Antony said that “simply ‘wearing a mask’ is not a Satanic ritual, and anyone that genuinely thinks otherwise is a blithering idiot,” adding that the group’s rituals were available on its website.
COVID, you never let us down.
You’re the (hurricane) wind beneath my wings
Marriage isn’t easy. From finances to everyday stressors like work and children, maintaining a solid relationship is tough. Then a natural disaster shows up on top of everything else, and marriages actually improve, researchers found.
In a study published by Psychological Science, researchers surveyed 231 newlywed couples about the satisfaction of their marriage before and after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. They found after the hurricane couples had a “significant boost” in the satisfaction of their relationship.
One would think something like this would create what researchers call a “stress spillover,” creating a decrease in relationship satisfaction. Destruction to your home or even displacement after a natural disaster seems pretty stressful. But, “a natural disaster can really put things in perspective. People realize how important their partner is to them when they are jolted out of the day-to-day stress of life,” said Hannah Williamson, PhD, the lead author of the study.
And although everyone saw an increase, the biggest jumps in relationship satisfaction belonged to the people who were most unhappy before the hurricane. Unfortunately, the researchers also found that the effects were only temporary and the dissatisfaction came back within a year.
Dr. Williamson thinks there may be something to these findings that can be beneficial from a therapy standpoint where “couples can shift their perspective in a similar way without having to go through a natural disaster.”
Let’s hope she’s right, because the alternative is to seek out a rampaging hurricane every time your relationship is on the rocks, and that just seems impractical after the second or third year.
Not-so-essential oils
Many people use essential oils as a way to unwind and relax. Stressed? Can’t sleep? There’s probably an essential oil for that. However, it seems like these days a lot of things we love and/or think are good for us have a side that’s not so.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a woman from Georgia died from a rare bacteria called Burkholderia pseudomallei. There have been three previous infections in Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas throughout 2021; two of the four infections were in children. Melioidosis, the disease caused by B. pseudomallei, is usually found in southeast Asia and isn’t obvious or easy to diagnose, especially in places like decidedly untropical Minnesota.
The Georgia case was the real break in this medical mystery, as the infection was traced back to a Walmart product called “Better Homes and Gardens Essential Oil Infused Aromatherapy Room Spray with Gemstones” (a very pithy name). The bacteria were in the lavender and chamomile scent. The CDC is investigating all other product scents, and Walmart has recalled all lots of the product.
If you’ve got that particular essential oil, it’s probably for the best that you stop using it. Don’t worry, we’re sure there’s plenty of other essential oil–infused aromatherapy room sprays with gemstones out there for your scent-based needs.
Welcome to the Ministry of Sleep-Deprived Walks
Walking is simple, right? You put one foot in front of the other, and soon you’re walking out the door. Little kids can do it. Even zombies can walk, and they don’t even have brains.
Research from MIT and the University of São Paulo has shown that walking is a little trickier than we might think. One researcher in particular noticed that student volunteers tended to perform worse toward the end of semesters, as project deadlines and multiple exams crashed over their heads and they were deprived of solid sleep schedules.
In a study published in Scientific Reports, our intrepid walking researchers had a collection of students monitor their sleep patterns for 2 weeks; on average, the students got 6 hours per night, though some were able to compensate on weekends. On the final day of a 14-day period, some students pulled all-nighters while the rest were allowed to sleep as usual. Then all students performed a walking test involving keeping time with a metronome.
To absolutely no one’s surprise, the students who performed all-nighters before being tested walked the worst, but between the other students, the ones who compensated for sleep deprivation on weekends did better than those who got 6 hours every night, despite getting a similar amount of sleep overall. This effect persisted even when the compensating students performed their walking tests late in the week, just before they got their weekend beauty sleep.
The moral of the story? Sleep is good, and you should get more of it. But if you can’t, sleep in on weekends. Science has given you permission. All those suburban dads looking to get their teenagers up at 8 in the morning must be sweating right now.
The Devil’s own face covering?
It’s been over a year and a half since the COVID-19 emergency was declared in the United States, and we’ve been starting to wonder what our good friend SARS-CoV-2 has left to give. The collective cynic/optimist in us figures that the insanity can’t last forever, right?
Maybe not forever, but …
A group of parents is suing the Central Bucks (Pa.) School District over school mask mandates, suggesting that the district has no legal authority to enforce such measures. Most of their arguments, Philadelphia Magazine says, are pretty standard stuff: Masks are causing depression, anxiety, and discomfort in their children; masks are a violation of their constitutional rights; and “masks are being used as a control mechanism over the population.”
There are some unusual claims, though. One of the parents, Shannon Harris, said that “wearing masks interferes with their religious duty to spread the word of God and forces them to participate in a satanic ritual,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Philadelphia Magazine decided to check on that “satanic ritual” claim by asking an expert, in this case a spokesperson for the Church of Satan. The Reverend Raul Antony said that “simply ‘wearing a mask’ is not a Satanic ritual, and anyone that genuinely thinks otherwise is a blithering idiot,” adding that the group’s rituals were available on its website.
COVID, you never let us down.
You’re the (hurricane) wind beneath my wings
Marriage isn’t easy. From finances to everyday stressors like work and children, maintaining a solid relationship is tough. Then a natural disaster shows up on top of everything else, and marriages actually improve, researchers found.
In a study published by Psychological Science, researchers surveyed 231 newlywed couples about the satisfaction of their marriage before and after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. They found after the hurricane couples had a “significant boost” in the satisfaction of their relationship.
One would think something like this would create what researchers call a “stress spillover,” creating a decrease in relationship satisfaction. Destruction to your home or even displacement after a natural disaster seems pretty stressful. But, “a natural disaster can really put things in perspective. People realize how important their partner is to them when they are jolted out of the day-to-day stress of life,” said Hannah Williamson, PhD, the lead author of the study.
And although everyone saw an increase, the biggest jumps in relationship satisfaction belonged to the people who were most unhappy before the hurricane. Unfortunately, the researchers also found that the effects were only temporary and the dissatisfaction came back within a year.
Dr. Williamson thinks there may be something to these findings that can be beneficial from a therapy standpoint where “couples can shift their perspective in a similar way without having to go through a natural disaster.”
Let’s hope she’s right, because the alternative is to seek out a rampaging hurricane every time your relationship is on the rocks, and that just seems impractical after the second or third year.
Not-so-essential oils
Many people use essential oils as a way to unwind and relax. Stressed? Can’t sleep? There’s probably an essential oil for that. However, it seems like these days a lot of things we love and/or think are good for us have a side that’s not so.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a woman from Georgia died from a rare bacteria called Burkholderia pseudomallei. There have been three previous infections in Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas throughout 2021; two of the four infections were in children. Melioidosis, the disease caused by B. pseudomallei, is usually found in southeast Asia and isn’t obvious or easy to diagnose, especially in places like decidedly untropical Minnesota.
The Georgia case was the real break in this medical mystery, as the infection was traced back to a Walmart product called “Better Homes and Gardens Essential Oil Infused Aromatherapy Room Spray with Gemstones” (a very pithy name). The bacteria were in the lavender and chamomile scent. The CDC is investigating all other product scents, and Walmart has recalled all lots of the product.
If you’ve got that particular essential oil, it’s probably for the best that you stop using it. Don’t worry, we’re sure there’s plenty of other essential oil–infused aromatherapy room sprays with gemstones out there for your scent-based needs.
Welcome to the Ministry of Sleep-Deprived Walks
Walking is simple, right? You put one foot in front of the other, and soon you’re walking out the door. Little kids can do it. Even zombies can walk, and they don’t even have brains.
Research from MIT and the University of São Paulo has shown that walking is a little trickier than we might think. One researcher in particular noticed that student volunteers tended to perform worse toward the end of semesters, as project deadlines and multiple exams crashed over their heads and they were deprived of solid sleep schedules.
In a study published in Scientific Reports, our intrepid walking researchers had a collection of students monitor their sleep patterns for 2 weeks; on average, the students got 6 hours per night, though some were able to compensate on weekends. On the final day of a 14-day period, some students pulled all-nighters while the rest were allowed to sleep as usual. Then all students performed a walking test involving keeping time with a metronome.
To absolutely no one’s surprise, the students who performed all-nighters before being tested walked the worst, but between the other students, the ones who compensated for sleep deprivation on weekends did better than those who got 6 hours every night, despite getting a similar amount of sleep overall. This effect persisted even when the compensating students performed their walking tests late in the week, just before they got their weekend beauty sleep.
The moral of the story? Sleep is good, and you should get more of it. But if you can’t, sleep in on weekends. Science has given you permission. All those suburban dads looking to get their teenagers up at 8 in the morning must be sweating right now.
The Devil’s own face covering?
It’s been over a year and a half since the COVID-19 emergency was declared in the United States, and we’ve been starting to wonder what our good friend SARS-CoV-2 has left to give. The collective cynic/optimist in us figures that the insanity can’t last forever, right?
Maybe not forever, but …
A group of parents is suing the Central Bucks (Pa.) School District over school mask mandates, suggesting that the district has no legal authority to enforce such measures. Most of their arguments, Philadelphia Magazine says, are pretty standard stuff: Masks are causing depression, anxiety, and discomfort in their children; masks are a violation of their constitutional rights; and “masks are being used as a control mechanism over the population.”
There are some unusual claims, though. One of the parents, Shannon Harris, said that “wearing masks interferes with their religious duty to spread the word of God and forces them to participate in a satanic ritual,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Philadelphia Magazine decided to check on that “satanic ritual” claim by asking an expert, in this case a spokesperson for the Church of Satan. The Reverend Raul Antony said that “simply ‘wearing a mask’ is not a Satanic ritual, and anyone that genuinely thinks otherwise is a blithering idiot,” adding that the group’s rituals were available on its website.
COVID, you never let us down.
You’re the (hurricane) wind beneath my wings
Marriage isn’t easy. From finances to everyday stressors like work and children, maintaining a solid relationship is tough. Then a natural disaster shows up on top of everything else, and marriages actually improve, researchers found.
In a study published by Psychological Science, researchers surveyed 231 newlywed couples about the satisfaction of their marriage before and after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. They found after the hurricane couples had a “significant boost” in the satisfaction of their relationship.
One would think something like this would create what researchers call a “stress spillover,” creating a decrease in relationship satisfaction. Destruction to your home or even displacement after a natural disaster seems pretty stressful. But, “a natural disaster can really put things in perspective. People realize how important their partner is to them when they are jolted out of the day-to-day stress of life,” said Hannah Williamson, PhD, the lead author of the study.
And although everyone saw an increase, the biggest jumps in relationship satisfaction belonged to the people who were most unhappy before the hurricane. Unfortunately, the researchers also found that the effects were only temporary and the dissatisfaction came back within a year.
Dr. Williamson thinks there may be something to these findings that can be beneficial from a therapy standpoint where “couples can shift their perspective in a similar way without having to go through a natural disaster.”
Let’s hope she’s right, because the alternative is to seek out a rampaging hurricane every time your relationship is on the rocks, and that just seems impractical after the second or third year.
Not-so-essential oils
Many people use essential oils as a way to unwind and relax. Stressed? Can’t sleep? There’s probably an essential oil for that. However, it seems like these days a lot of things we love and/or think are good for us have a side that’s not so.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a woman from Georgia died from a rare bacteria called Burkholderia pseudomallei. There have been three previous infections in Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas throughout 2021; two of the four infections were in children. Melioidosis, the disease caused by B. pseudomallei, is usually found in southeast Asia and isn’t obvious or easy to diagnose, especially in places like decidedly untropical Minnesota.
The Georgia case was the real break in this medical mystery, as the infection was traced back to a Walmart product called “Better Homes and Gardens Essential Oil Infused Aromatherapy Room Spray with Gemstones” (a very pithy name). The bacteria were in the lavender and chamomile scent. The CDC is investigating all other product scents, and Walmart has recalled all lots of the product.
If you’ve got that particular essential oil, it’s probably for the best that you stop using it. Don’t worry, we’re sure there’s plenty of other essential oil–infused aromatherapy room sprays with gemstones out there for your scent-based needs.
Welcome to the Ministry of Sleep-Deprived Walks
Walking is simple, right? You put one foot in front of the other, and soon you’re walking out the door. Little kids can do it. Even zombies can walk, and they don’t even have brains.
Research from MIT and the University of São Paulo has shown that walking is a little trickier than we might think. One researcher in particular noticed that student volunteers tended to perform worse toward the end of semesters, as project deadlines and multiple exams crashed over their heads and they were deprived of solid sleep schedules.
In a study published in Scientific Reports, our intrepid walking researchers had a collection of students monitor their sleep patterns for 2 weeks; on average, the students got 6 hours per night, though some were able to compensate on weekends. On the final day of a 14-day period, some students pulled all-nighters while the rest were allowed to sleep as usual. Then all students performed a walking test involving keeping time with a metronome.
To absolutely no one’s surprise, the students who performed all-nighters before being tested walked the worst, but between the other students, the ones who compensated for sleep deprivation on weekends did better than those who got 6 hours every night, despite getting a similar amount of sleep overall. This effect persisted even when the compensating students performed their walking tests late in the week, just before they got their weekend beauty sleep.
The moral of the story? Sleep is good, and you should get more of it. But if you can’t, sleep in on weekends. Science has given you permission. All those suburban dads looking to get their teenagers up at 8 in the morning must be sweating right now.
FDA panel votes to approve Pfizer’s vaccine for children
Seventeen of the 18 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Oct. 26 voted to recommend the 10-microgram shot for kids, which is one-third the dose given to adults.
One member, Michael Kurilla, MD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., abstained from voting.
If the FDA follows the recommendation, as it typically does, and issues an Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccine, the shots could be available within days.
After the FDA’s final decision, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make specific recommendations for its use. The CDC committee must stick closely to the conditions for use spelled out in the EUA, so their recommendations are likely to be similar to those made by the FDA. Their next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 2 and 3.
In the end, some on the panel felt uneasy with their decision.
“I voted yes primarily because I wanted to make sure that children who really need this vaccine, the Black and brown children of our country, get the vaccine,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.
“But to be honest, the best way to protect the health of some children will be to do nothing because they will be just fine,” he said.
Others said they were surprised by how difficult the decision had been.
“This is a much tougher one than we had expected going into it,” said committee member Eric Rubin, MD, editor and chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, during the FDA advisory committee’s meeting.
Ahead of the vote, the committee heard presentations outlining the expected benefits of vaccinating children along with potential risks.
“Children have been greatly impacted by the pandemic,” said Fiona Havers, MD, a medical officer with the CDC in Atlanta who reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19 in kids.
In the second year of the pandemic, as more seniors have been vaccinated against the virus, COVID cases have largely shifted from older to younger age groups.
So far, there have been more than 1.9 million COVID-19 cases in children ages 5 through 11 in the United States.. Cases in kids saw a big jump in July and August with summer travel, schools reopening, and the dominance of the Delta variant.
And those are just the cases reported to the CDC. Regular testing of anonymous blood samples collected at sites across the United States indicates that 6 times as many kids have had COVID than what is reflected in official counts.
Last winter, blood sample testing showed about 13% of children had antibodies against the virus, suggesting they’d been infected. By this summer, that number had risen to 42%.
That figure clearly made an impression on many members of the committee who asked the FDA’s vaccine reviewers if they had tried to account for immunity from past infections in their modeling. They had not.
Some felt that even with a highly effective vaccine — new data presented by Pfizer showed the children’s dose was 90% effective at preventing symptomatic infections in kids — caution was warranted as much is still unknown about myocarditis, a rare side effect of the mRNA vaccines.
Myocarditis has been more common in younger age groups. It usually goes away over time but requires hospital care. It’s not known if myocarditis could have lingering effects for those who experience it.
There were no cases of myocarditis seen in Pfizer’s studies of the vaccine in children, and no other serious events were seen. Vaccine side effects reported in the Pfizer studies were mostly mild and included fatigue, headache, and pain at the injection site.
“We think we have optimized the immune response and minimized our reactions,” said William Gruber, MD, senior vice president vaccine research and clinical development at Pfizer.
But the studies didn’t include enough participants to pick up rare, but serious adverse events like myocarditis.
“We’re worried about a side effect that we can’t measure yet, but it’s probably real, and we see a benefit that isn’t the same as it is in older age groups,” said Dr. Rubin.
Benefits vs. risks
FDA modeled the benefits and risks for children under a variety of scenarios. The benefits of the vaccines to children very much depend on the amount of transmission in the community.
When transmission is high, the benefits to children — in terms of infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions — clearly outweigh its risks.
But when COVID-19 rates are low in the community, as they were in June, FDA analysts predicted the vaccines might send more children to the hospital for myocarditis than the virus would.
The FDA noted that kids who are hospitalized for myocarditis tend not to be as ill as children with COVID-19, however.
“If the trends continue the way they are going, the emergency for children is not what we might think it would be. That was my concern,” Dr. Hildreth said.
But others warned against complacency.
“Thinking that this is going to be the end of the wave permanently may be a little overly optimistic,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, a professor of public health and epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The majority of COVID-19 cases in children are mild. Only about 1% of kids are hospitalized for their infections, according to CDC data. But the rates of hospitalizations in kids are about 3 times higher for people of color — including Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, as compared to Whites and Asian Americans.
Since the start of the pandemic, 94 children ages 5 to 11 have died, making it the eighth leading cause of death for kids this age last year.
More than 5,200 children have developed a delayed complication from their infections called Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C).
MIS-C can be severe and require hospital care and can lead to myocarditis. Children ages 5 to 11 are the age group at greatest risk for this complication.
Kids can also get long COVID. There’s not a lot of data on how often this happens, though it appears to be less frequent in children than in adults.
But a survey in the United Kingdom found that 7%-8% of kids have symptoms from their infections that last longer than 12 weeks, Dr. Havers said. Symptoms that can linger for kids include fatigue, cough, muscle and joint pain, headaches, and insomnia.
More than 1 million children have been impacted by school closures so far this year, and quarantines have had lasting impacts on learning, social development, and mental health.
Even though kids aren’t usually COVID superspreaders, they can still pass the infection on to others.
“What is clear is that secondary transmission from children, both to other children and to adults, does occur,” Dr. Havers said.
For that reason, they can continue the spread of the virus and give it opportunities to mutate and become more dangerous.
Safety monitoring to continue
Some committee members referenced thousands of letters they had received within the past few days urging them to vote against the vaccine.
Jay Portnoy, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., said he had personally received about 4,000 emails.
“But I feel like I need to also represent the consumers, the parents that I see every day in the clinic who are terrified of sending their children to school because they’re not protected against COVID,” he said, explaining his vote to recommend authorization.
“Our kids are going to be dealing with this virus for many years to come. It’s going to come repeatedly. Getting this vaccine is just the first step that they can take to protect themselves from having bad outcomes,” Dr. Portnoy said.
Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, reminded members of the committee that there were several government surveillance systems in place to catch any potential safety issues in near real time.
“I really appreciate very much the concern here. The safety monitoring of this vaccine will continue,” Dr. Marks said. “I do view this as one of our greatest responsibilities.”
“I really am so grateful that we had this discussion and voted to approve,” said Capt. Amanda Cohn, MD, chief medical officer at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
“I think the benefits in this age group really are super important even if they are lower than for other age groups.”
This article was updated 10/27/21.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Seventeen of the 18 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Oct. 26 voted to recommend the 10-microgram shot for kids, which is one-third the dose given to adults.
One member, Michael Kurilla, MD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., abstained from voting.
If the FDA follows the recommendation, as it typically does, and issues an Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccine, the shots could be available within days.
After the FDA’s final decision, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make specific recommendations for its use. The CDC committee must stick closely to the conditions for use spelled out in the EUA, so their recommendations are likely to be similar to those made by the FDA. Their next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 2 and 3.
In the end, some on the panel felt uneasy with their decision.
“I voted yes primarily because I wanted to make sure that children who really need this vaccine, the Black and brown children of our country, get the vaccine,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.
“But to be honest, the best way to protect the health of some children will be to do nothing because they will be just fine,” he said.
Others said they were surprised by how difficult the decision had been.
“This is a much tougher one than we had expected going into it,” said committee member Eric Rubin, MD, editor and chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, during the FDA advisory committee’s meeting.
Ahead of the vote, the committee heard presentations outlining the expected benefits of vaccinating children along with potential risks.
“Children have been greatly impacted by the pandemic,” said Fiona Havers, MD, a medical officer with the CDC in Atlanta who reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19 in kids.
In the second year of the pandemic, as more seniors have been vaccinated against the virus, COVID cases have largely shifted from older to younger age groups.
So far, there have been more than 1.9 million COVID-19 cases in children ages 5 through 11 in the United States.. Cases in kids saw a big jump in July and August with summer travel, schools reopening, and the dominance of the Delta variant.
And those are just the cases reported to the CDC. Regular testing of anonymous blood samples collected at sites across the United States indicates that 6 times as many kids have had COVID than what is reflected in official counts.
Last winter, blood sample testing showed about 13% of children had antibodies against the virus, suggesting they’d been infected. By this summer, that number had risen to 42%.
That figure clearly made an impression on many members of the committee who asked the FDA’s vaccine reviewers if they had tried to account for immunity from past infections in their modeling. They had not.
Some felt that even with a highly effective vaccine — new data presented by Pfizer showed the children’s dose was 90% effective at preventing symptomatic infections in kids — caution was warranted as much is still unknown about myocarditis, a rare side effect of the mRNA vaccines.
Myocarditis has been more common in younger age groups. It usually goes away over time but requires hospital care. It’s not known if myocarditis could have lingering effects for those who experience it.
There were no cases of myocarditis seen in Pfizer’s studies of the vaccine in children, and no other serious events were seen. Vaccine side effects reported in the Pfizer studies were mostly mild and included fatigue, headache, and pain at the injection site.
“We think we have optimized the immune response and minimized our reactions,” said William Gruber, MD, senior vice president vaccine research and clinical development at Pfizer.
But the studies didn’t include enough participants to pick up rare, but serious adverse events like myocarditis.
“We’re worried about a side effect that we can’t measure yet, but it’s probably real, and we see a benefit that isn’t the same as it is in older age groups,” said Dr. Rubin.
Benefits vs. risks
FDA modeled the benefits and risks for children under a variety of scenarios. The benefits of the vaccines to children very much depend on the amount of transmission in the community.
When transmission is high, the benefits to children — in terms of infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions — clearly outweigh its risks.
But when COVID-19 rates are low in the community, as they were in June, FDA analysts predicted the vaccines might send more children to the hospital for myocarditis than the virus would.
The FDA noted that kids who are hospitalized for myocarditis tend not to be as ill as children with COVID-19, however.
“If the trends continue the way they are going, the emergency for children is not what we might think it would be. That was my concern,” Dr. Hildreth said.
But others warned against complacency.
“Thinking that this is going to be the end of the wave permanently may be a little overly optimistic,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, a professor of public health and epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The majority of COVID-19 cases in children are mild. Only about 1% of kids are hospitalized for their infections, according to CDC data. But the rates of hospitalizations in kids are about 3 times higher for people of color — including Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, as compared to Whites and Asian Americans.
Since the start of the pandemic, 94 children ages 5 to 11 have died, making it the eighth leading cause of death for kids this age last year.
More than 5,200 children have developed a delayed complication from their infections called Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C).
MIS-C can be severe and require hospital care and can lead to myocarditis. Children ages 5 to 11 are the age group at greatest risk for this complication.
Kids can also get long COVID. There’s not a lot of data on how often this happens, though it appears to be less frequent in children than in adults.
But a survey in the United Kingdom found that 7%-8% of kids have symptoms from their infections that last longer than 12 weeks, Dr. Havers said. Symptoms that can linger for kids include fatigue, cough, muscle and joint pain, headaches, and insomnia.
More than 1 million children have been impacted by school closures so far this year, and quarantines have had lasting impacts on learning, social development, and mental health.
Even though kids aren’t usually COVID superspreaders, they can still pass the infection on to others.
“What is clear is that secondary transmission from children, both to other children and to adults, does occur,” Dr. Havers said.
For that reason, they can continue the spread of the virus and give it opportunities to mutate and become more dangerous.
Safety monitoring to continue
Some committee members referenced thousands of letters they had received within the past few days urging them to vote against the vaccine.
Jay Portnoy, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., said he had personally received about 4,000 emails.
“But I feel like I need to also represent the consumers, the parents that I see every day in the clinic who are terrified of sending their children to school because they’re not protected against COVID,” he said, explaining his vote to recommend authorization.
“Our kids are going to be dealing with this virus for many years to come. It’s going to come repeatedly. Getting this vaccine is just the first step that they can take to protect themselves from having bad outcomes,” Dr. Portnoy said.
Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, reminded members of the committee that there were several government surveillance systems in place to catch any potential safety issues in near real time.
“I really appreciate very much the concern here. The safety monitoring of this vaccine will continue,” Dr. Marks said. “I do view this as one of our greatest responsibilities.”
“I really am so grateful that we had this discussion and voted to approve,” said Capt. Amanda Cohn, MD, chief medical officer at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
“I think the benefits in this age group really are super important even if they are lower than for other age groups.”
This article was updated 10/27/21.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Seventeen of the 18 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Oct. 26 voted to recommend the 10-microgram shot for kids, which is one-third the dose given to adults.
One member, Michael Kurilla, MD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., abstained from voting.
If the FDA follows the recommendation, as it typically does, and issues an Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccine, the shots could be available within days.
After the FDA’s final decision, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make specific recommendations for its use. The CDC committee must stick closely to the conditions for use spelled out in the EUA, so their recommendations are likely to be similar to those made by the FDA. Their next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 2 and 3.
In the end, some on the panel felt uneasy with their decision.
“I voted yes primarily because I wanted to make sure that children who really need this vaccine, the Black and brown children of our country, get the vaccine,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.
“But to be honest, the best way to protect the health of some children will be to do nothing because they will be just fine,” he said.
Others said they were surprised by how difficult the decision had been.
“This is a much tougher one than we had expected going into it,” said committee member Eric Rubin, MD, editor and chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, during the FDA advisory committee’s meeting.
Ahead of the vote, the committee heard presentations outlining the expected benefits of vaccinating children along with potential risks.
“Children have been greatly impacted by the pandemic,” said Fiona Havers, MD, a medical officer with the CDC in Atlanta who reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19 in kids.
In the second year of the pandemic, as more seniors have been vaccinated against the virus, COVID cases have largely shifted from older to younger age groups.
So far, there have been more than 1.9 million COVID-19 cases in children ages 5 through 11 in the United States.. Cases in kids saw a big jump in July and August with summer travel, schools reopening, and the dominance of the Delta variant.
And those are just the cases reported to the CDC. Regular testing of anonymous blood samples collected at sites across the United States indicates that 6 times as many kids have had COVID than what is reflected in official counts.
Last winter, blood sample testing showed about 13% of children had antibodies against the virus, suggesting they’d been infected. By this summer, that number had risen to 42%.
That figure clearly made an impression on many members of the committee who asked the FDA’s vaccine reviewers if they had tried to account for immunity from past infections in their modeling. They had not.
Some felt that even with a highly effective vaccine — new data presented by Pfizer showed the children’s dose was 90% effective at preventing symptomatic infections in kids — caution was warranted as much is still unknown about myocarditis, a rare side effect of the mRNA vaccines.
Myocarditis has been more common in younger age groups. It usually goes away over time but requires hospital care. It’s not known if myocarditis could have lingering effects for those who experience it.
There were no cases of myocarditis seen in Pfizer’s studies of the vaccine in children, and no other serious events were seen. Vaccine side effects reported in the Pfizer studies were mostly mild and included fatigue, headache, and pain at the injection site.
“We think we have optimized the immune response and minimized our reactions,” said William Gruber, MD, senior vice president vaccine research and clinical development at Pfizer.
But the studies didn’t include enough participants to pick up rare, but serious adverse events like myocarditis.
“We’re worried about a side effect that we can’t measure yet, but it’s probably real, and we see a benefit that isn’t the same as it is in older age groups,” said Dr. Rubin.
Benefits vs. risks
FDA modeled the benefits and risks for children under a variety of scenarios. The benefits of the vaccines to children very much depend on the amount of transmission in the community.
When transmission is high, the benefits to children — in terms of infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions — clearly outweigh its risks.
But when COVID-19 rates are low in the community, as they were in June, FDA analysts predicted the vaccines might send more children to the hospital for myocarditis than the virus would.
The FDA noted that kids who are hospitalized for myocarditis tend not to be as ill as children with COVID-19, however.
“If the trends continue the way they are going, the emergency for children is not what we might think it would be. That was my concern,” Dr. Hildreth said.
But others warned against complacency.
“Thinking that this is going to be the end of the wave permanently may be a little overly optimistic,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, a professor of public health and epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The majority of COVID-19 cases in children are mild. Only about 1% of kids are hospitalized for their infections, according to CDC data. But the rates of hospitalizations in kids are about 3 times higher for people of color — including Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, as compared to Whites and Asian Americans.
Since the start of the pandemic, 94 children ages 5 to 11 have died, making it the eighth leading cause of death for kids this age last year.
More than 5,200 children have developed a delayed complication from their infections called Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C).
MIS-C can be severe and require hospital care and can lead to myocarditis. Children ages 5 to 11 are the age group at greatest risk for this complication.
Kids can also get long COVID. There’s not a lot of data on how often this happens, though it appears to be less frequent in children than in adults.
But a survey in the United Kingdom found that 7%-8% of kids have symptoms from their infections that last longer than 12 weeks, Dr. Havers said. Symptoms that can linger for kids include fatigue, cough, muscle and joint pain, headaches, and insomnia.
More than 1 million children have been impacted by school closures so far this year, and quarantines have had lasting impacts on learning, social development, and mental health.
Even though kids aren’t usually COVID superspreaders, they can still pass the infection on to others.
“What is clear is that secondary transmission from children, both to other children and to adults, does occur,” Dr. Havers said.
For that reason, they can continue the spread of the virus and give it opportunities to mutate and become more dangerous.
Safety monitoring to continue
Some committee members referenced thousands of letters they had received within the past few days urging them to vote against the vaccine.
Jay Portnoy, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., said he had personally received about 4,000 emails.
“But I feel like I need to also represent the consumers, the parents that I see every day in the clinic who are terrified of sending their children to school because they’re not protected against COVID,” he said, explaining his vote to recommend authorization.
“Our kids are going to be dealing with this virus for many years to come. It’s going to come repeatedly. Getting this vaccine is just the first step that they can take to protect themselves from having bad outcomes,” Dr. Portnoy said.
Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, reminded members of the committee that there were several government surveillance systems in place to catch any potential safety issues in near real time.
“I really appreciate very much the concern here. The safety monitoring of this vaccine will continue,” Dr. Marks said. “I do view this as one of our greatest responsibilities.”
“I really am so grateful that we had this discussion and voted to approve,” said Capt. Amanda Cohn, MD, chief medical officer at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
“I think the benefits in this age group really are super important even if they are lower than for other age groups.”
This article was updated 10/27/21.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Risk-based antenatal type-and-screen blood testing safe and economical
Implementing a selective type-and-screen blood testing policy in the labor and delivery unit was associated with projected annual savings of close to $200,000, a large single-center study found. Furthermore, there was no evidence of increased maternal morbidity in the university-based facility performing more than 4,400 deliveries per year, according to Ashley E. Benson, MD, MA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.
The study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, evaluated patient safety, resource utilization, and transfusion-related costs after a policy change from universal type and screen to selective, risk-based type and screen on admission to labor and delivery.
“There had been some national interest in moving toward decreased resource utilization, and findings that universal screening was not cost effective,” Dr. Benson, who has since relocated to Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. An earlier cost-effective modeling study at her center had suggested that universal test and screen was not cost effective and likely not safer either. “So based on that data we felt an implementation study was warranted.”
The switch to a selective policy was made in 2018, after which her group compared outcomes from October 2017 to September 2019, looking those both 1 year preimplementation and 1 year post implementation.
One year post implementation, the following outcomes emerged, compared with preimplementation:
- Overall projected saving of $181,000 a year in the maternity unit
- Lower mean monthly type- and screen-related costs, such as those for ABO typing, antibody screen, and antibody workup. cross-matches, hold clots, and transfused products: $9,753 vs. $20,676 in the preimplementation year (P < .001)
- A lower mean monthly cost of total transfusion preparedness: $25,090 vs. $39,211 (P < .001)
- No differences in emergency-release transfusion events (four vs. three, P = .99),the study’s primary safety outcome
- Fewer emergency-release red blood cell units transfused (9 vs. 24, P = .002) and O-negative RBC units transfused (8 vs. 18, P = .016)
- No differences in hysterectomies (0.05% vs. 0.1%, P = .44) and ICU admissions (0.45% vs. 0.51%, P = .43)
“In a year of selective type and screen, we saw a 51% reduction in costs related to type and screen, and a 38% reduction in overall transfusion-related costs,” the authors wrote. “This study supports other literature suggesting that more judicious use of type and screen may be safe and cost effective.”
Dr. Benson said the results were positively received when presented a meeting 2 years ago but the published version has yet to prompt feedback.
The study
Antepartum patients underwent transfusion preparedness tests according to the center’s standard antenatal admission order sets and were risk stratified in alignment with California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative recommendations. The mean maternal age of patients in both time periods was similar at just over 29 years and the mean gestational age at delivery was just under 38 weeks.
Under the new policy, a “hold clot” is obtained for women stratified as low or medium risk on admission. In this instance, a tube of patient blood is held in the blood bank but processed only if needed, as in the event of active hemorrhage or an order for transfusion. A blood cross-match is obtained on all women stratified as high risk or having a prior positive antibody screen.
Relevant costs were the direct costs of transfusion-related testing in the labor and delivery unit from a health system perspective.
Obstetric hemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide, the authors pointed out. While transfusion in obstetric patients occurs in only 1% or 2% of all deliveries it is nevertheless difficult to predict which patients will need transfusion, with only 2%-8% of those stratified as high risk ultimately requiring transfusion. Although obstetric hemorrhage safety bundles recommend risk stratification on admission to labor and delivery with selective type and screen for higher-risk individuals, for safety and simplicity’s sake, many labor and delivery units perform universal type and screen.
The authors cautioned that these results occurred in an academic tertiary care center with systems fine-tuned to deal with active hemorrhage and deliver timely transfusable blood. “At the moment we don’t have enough data to say whether the selective approach would be safe in hospitals with more limited blood bank capacity and access and fewer transfusion specialists in a setting optimized to respond to emergent needs, Dr. Benson said.
Katayoun F. M. Fomani, MD, a transfusion medicine specialist and medical director of blood bank and transfusion services at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New York, agreed. “This approach only works in a controlled environment such as in this study where eligible women were assessed antenatally at the same center, but it would not work at every institution,” she said in an interview. “In addition, all patients were assessed according to the California Collaborative guideline, which itself increases the safety level but is not followed everywhere.”
The obstetric division at her hospital in New York adheres to the universal type and screen. “We have patients coming in from outside whose antenatal testing was not done at our hospital,” she said. “For this selective approach to work you need a controlled population and the electronic resources and personnel to follow each patient carefully.”
The authors indicated no specific funding for this study and disclosed no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Fomani had no potential competing interests to declare.
Implementing a selective type-and-screen blood testing policy in the labor and delivery unit was associated with projected annual savings of close to $200,000, a large single-center study found. Furthermore, there was no evidence of increased maternal morbidity in the university-based facility performing more than 4,400 deliveries per year, according to Ashley E. Benson, MD, MA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.
The study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, evaluated patient safety, resource utilization, and transfusion-related costs after a policy change from universal type and screen to selective, risk-based type and screen on admission to labor and delivery.
“There had been some national interest in moving toward decreased resource utilization, and findings that universal screening was not cost effective,” Dr. Benson, who has since relocated to Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. An earlier cost-effective modeling study at her center had suggested that universal test and screen was not cost effective and likely not safer either. “So based on that data we felt an implementation study was warranted.”
The switch to a selective policy was made in 2018, after which her group compared outcomes from October 2017 to September 2019, looking those both 1 year preimplementation and 1 year post implementation.
One year post implementation, the following outcomes emerged, compared with preimplementation:
- Overall projected saving of $181,000 a year in the maternity unit
- Lower mean monthly type- and screen-related costs, such as those for ABO typing, antibody screen, and antibody workup. cross-matches, hold clots, and transfused products: $9,753 vs. $20,676 in the preimplementation year (P < .001)
- A lower mean monthly cost of total transfusion preparedness: $25,090 vs. $39,211 (P < .001)
- No differences in emergency-release transfusion events (four vs. three, P = .99),the study’s primary safety outcome
- Fewer emergency-release red blood cell units transfused (9 vs. 24, P = .002) and O-negative RBC units transfused (8 vs. 18, P = .016)
- No differences in hysterectomies (0.05% vs. 0.1%, P = .44) and ICU admissions (0.45% vs. 0.51%, P = .43)
“In a year of selective type and screen, we saw a 51% reduction in costs related to type and screen, and a 38% reduction in overall transfusion-related costs,” the authors wrote. “This study supports other literature suggesting that more judicious use of type and screen may be safe and cost effective.”
Dr. Benson said the results were positively received when presented a meeting 2 years ago but the published version has yet to prompt feedback.
The study
Antepartum patients underwent transfusion preparedness tests according to the center’s standard antenatal admission order sets and were risk stratified in alignment with California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative recommendations. The mean maternal age of patients in both time periods was similar at just over 29 years and the mean gestational age at delivery was just under 38 weeks.
Under the new policy, a “hold clot” is obtained for women stratified as low or medium risk on admission. In this instance, a tube of patient blood is held in the blood bank but processed only if needed, as in the event of active hemorrhage or an order for transfusion. A blood cross-match is obtained on all women stratified as high risk or having a prior positive antibody screen.
Relevant costs were the direct costs of transfusion-related testing in the labor and delivery unit from a health system perspective.
Obstetric hemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide, the authors pointed out. While transfusion in obstetric patients occurs in only 1% or 2% of all deliveries it is nevertheless difficult to predict which patients will need transfusion, with only 2%-8% of those stratified as high risk ultimately requiring transfusion. Although obstetric hemorrhage safety bundles recommend risk stratification on admission to labor and delivery with selective type and screen for higher-risk individuals, for safety and simplicity’s sake, many labor and delivery units perform universal type and screen.
The authors cautioned that these results occurred in an academic tertiary care center with systems fine-tuned to deal with active hemorrhage and deliver timely transfusable blood. “At the moment we don’t have enough data to say whether the selective approach would be safe in hospitals with more limited blood bank capacity and access and fewer transfusion specialists in a setting optimized to respond to emergent needs, Dr. Benson said.
Katayoun F. M. Fomani, MD, a transfusion medicine specialist and medical director of blood bank and transfusion services at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New York, agreed. “This approach only works in a controlled environment such as in this study where eligible women were assessed antenatally at the same center, but it would not work at every institution,” she said in an interview. “In addition, all patients were assessed according to the California Collaborative guideline, which itself increases the safety level but is not followed everywhere.”
The obstetric division at her hospital in New York adheres to the universal type and screen. “We have patients coming in from outside whose antenatal testing was not done at our hospital,” she said. “For this selective approach to work you need a controlled population and the electronic resources and personnel to follow each patient carefully.”
The authors indicated no specific funding for this study and disclosed no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Fomani had no potential competing interests to declare.
Implementing a selective type-and-screen blood testing policy in the labor and delivery unit was associated with projected annual savings of close to $200,000, a large single-center study found. Furthermore, there was no evidence of increased maternal morbidity in the university-based facility performing more than 4,400 deliveries per year, according to Ashley E. Benson, MD, MA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.
The study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, evaluated patient safety, resource utilization, and transfusion-related costs after a policy change from universal type and screen to selective, risk-based type and screen on admission to labor and delivery.
“There had been some national interest in moving toward decreased resource utilization, and findings that universal screening was not cost effective,” Dr. Benson, who has since relocated to Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. An earlier cost-effective modeling study at her center had suggested that universal test and screen was not cost effective and likely not safer either. “So based on that data we felt an implementation study was warranted.”
The switch to a selective policy was made in 2018, after which her group compared outcomes from October 2017 to September 2019, looking those both 1 year preimplementation and 1 year post implementation.
One year post implementation, the following outcomes emerged, compared with preimplementation:
- Overall projected saving of $181,000 a year in the maternity unit
- Lower mean monthly type- and screen-related costs, such as those for ABO typing, antibody screen, and antibody workup. cross-matches, hold clots, and transfused products: $9,753 vs. $20,676 in the preimplementation year (P < .001)
- A lower mean monthly cost of total transfusion preparedness: $25,090 vs. $39,211 (P < .001)
- No differences in emergency-release transfusion events (four vs. three, P = .99),the study’s primary safety outcome
- Fewer emergency-release red blood cell units transfused (9 vs. 24, P = .002) and O-negative RBC units transfused (8 vs. 18, P = .016)
- No differences in hysterectomies (0.05% vs. 0.1%, P = .44) and ICU admissions (0.45% vs. 0.51%, P = .43)
“In a year of selective type and screen, we saw a 51% reduction in costs related to type and screen, and a 38% reduction in overall transfusion-related costs,” the authors wrote. “This study supports other literature suggesting that more judicious use of type and screen may be safe and cost effective.”
Dr. Benson said the results were positively received when presented a meeting 2 years ago but the published version has yet to prompt feedback.
The study
Antepartum patients underwent transfusion preparedness tests according to the center’s standard antenatal admission order sets and were risk stratified in alignment with California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative recommendations. The mean maternal age of patients in both time periods was similar at just over 29 years and the mean gestational age at delivery was just under 38 weeks.
Under the new policy, a “hold clot” is obtained for women stratified as low or medium risk on admission. In this instance, a tube of patient blood is held in the blood bank but processed only if needed, as in the event of active hemorrhage or an order for transfusion. A blood cross-match is obtained on all women stratified as high risk or having a prior positive antibody screen.
Relevant costs were the direct costs of transfusion-related testing in the labor and delivery unit from a health system perspective.
Obstetric hemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide, the authors pointed out. While transfusion in obstetric patients occurs in only 1% or 2% of all deliveries it is nevertheless difficult to predict which patients will need transfusion, with only 2%-8% of those stratified as high risk ultimately requiring transfusion. Although obstetric hemorrhage safety bundles recommend risk stratification on admission to labor and delivery with selective type and screen for higher-risk individuals, for safety and simplicity’s sake, many labor and delivery units perform universal type and screen.
The authors cautioned that these results occurred in an academic tertiary care center with systems fine-tuned to deal with active hemorrhage and deliver timely transfusable blood. “At the moment we don’t have enough data to say whether the selective approach would be safe in hospitals with more limited blood bank capacity and access and fewer transfusion specialists in a setting optimized to respond to emergent needs, Dr. Benson said.
Katayoun F. M. Fomani, MD, a transfusion medicine specialist and medical director of blood bank and transfusion services at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New York, agreed. “This approach only works in a controlled environment such as in this study where eligible women were assessed antenatally at the same center, but it would not work at every institution,” she said in an interview. “In addition, all patients were assessed according to the California Collaborative guideline, which itself increases the safety level but is not followed everywhere.”
The obstetric division at her hospital in New York adheres to the universal type and screen. “We have patients coming in from outside whose antenatal testing was not done at our hospital,” she said. “For this selective approach to work you need a controlled population and the electronic resources and personnel to follow each patient carefully.”
The authors indicated no specific funding for this study and disclosed no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Fomani had no potential competing interests to declare.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Unvaccinated people likely to catch COVID repeatedly
according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.
Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.
“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.
“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”
The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.
The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.
“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.
“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”
Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.
The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.
“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.
Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.
“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.
“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”
The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.
The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.
“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.
“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”
Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.
The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.
“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.
Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.
“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.
“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”
The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.
The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.
“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.
“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”
Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.
The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.
“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Antithrombotic therapy not warranted in COVID-19 outpatients
Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.
Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.
“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”
The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.
The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.
The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.
Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.
The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.
The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.
The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.
The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.
The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.
Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.
The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.
No major bleeding events were reported.
The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.
Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.
The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.
“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”
“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.
Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
Robust evidence
“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.
“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.
The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.
“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”
ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.
“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.
Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.
“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”
The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.
The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.
The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.
Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.
The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.
The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.
The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.
The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.
The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.
Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.
The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.
No major bleeding events were reported.
The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.
Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.
The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.
“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”
“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.
Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
Robust evidence
“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.
“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.
The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.
“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”
ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.
“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.
Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.
“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”
The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.
The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.
The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.
Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.
The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.
The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.
The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.
The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.
The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.
Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.
The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.
No major bleeding events were reported.
The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.
Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.
The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.
“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”
“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.
Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
Robust evidence
“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.
“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.
The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.
“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”
ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.
“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.