User login
CDER chief reflects on advances in rare diseases
, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).
During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Q: What does this lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders mean to you at this stage in your career?
Dr. Woodcock: According to NORD, there are more than 7,000 rare diseases that affect an estimated 25 million Americans. More than half of those affected are children. Many of these diseases are very serious, so there is a great deal of suffering that goes on, sometimes for a lifetime. I’ve always felt that people suffering like this don’t really have a voice. I’ve always tried to push the regulatory science, the science behind evaluation, and all of the efforts we can make to help those who are trying to develop products for people suffering from these rare diseases. The science is really picking up. We’re seeing more drug approvals every year for rare disorders. Hopefully, the lives of people with rare disorders will improve and we will continue to see a trajectory of better outcomes for people.
Q: Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician? What was it about that person (or persons) that made a difference to you?
Dr. Woodcock: During my training I had the privilege to be exposed to a wide range of stellar diagnosticians and people who were good clinicians who cared about their patients. That experience modeled for me what I would like to be as a doctor.
Q: In 2017, the National Consumers League described you as “a passionate advocate for American patients and consumers, an ally to patient advocacy groups, and a fearless leader at the FDA.” In your own words, how do you describe your leadership style?
Dr. Woodcock: People always call me fearless, but I feel like I just state the facts. I care about getting technical input from everyone, but I’m not terribly concerned about people’s disapproval of my actions. I’m a leader who tries to do the right thing, the thing that will benefit patients. I try to keep them at the center of what we’re doing, who we’re regulating for. We work for the American public. As far as CDER, it’s the people who take medicine, people who administer medicine, and people who need treatments.
Q: Since joining CDER as director in 2008, what are some accomplishments you are most proud of as it relates to treatments for patients with rare diseases?
Dr. Woodcock: I undertook a transformation and modernization of the New Drugs Regulatory Program, which created offices that align interrelated disease areas, and divisions with clearer and more focused areas of expertise. These changes will bring efficiency and effectiveness. We also set up an Office of Translational Sciences. All of these actions are important. In developing drugs for rare disorders, we need more flexibility. We have a lot of critics who say, “Rare disease trials are too small.” If you look at a cardiovascular trial of 25,000 people, for example, the investigators might only have .1% of the affected population enrolled. On the other hand, a rare disease trial of 100 people might represent half of the entire population with that disease. We often get criticism because it’s more difficult to define endpoints. The diseases aren’t that well understood, and you’re going to have smaller trials because there aren’t that many people with the disease. We need to figure out how to appropriately exercise that flexibility in regulation and make sure people have access, but have a high probability of getting products that work and have been adequately tested for safely. We also started a Rare Disease Cures Accelerator, which is enrolling people online in natural history studies to see what happens to them so we can better plan studies. We have Patient-Focused Drug Development meetings as a way to gather patients’ perspectives on their conditions and available therapies to treat those conditions. That is eye-opening, because what the doctor thinks about the disease may not be what the patient thinks about the disease. The patients are the ones taking the medicine, so we need to collect their opinions. Such approaches make it easier to study rare diseases and get new treatments.
Q: How do the challenges of drug research and development in the field of rare diseases differ from those associated with more prevalent diseases?
Dr. Woodcock: There is one advantage today for people with rare diseases. That is, when there is a known genetic mutation causing a disease, RNA interference and other gene therapy approaches can be used. There are challenges, though. Patients with rare disorders often don’t have a uniform disease course. They often have a multisystem impact, so they might have things wrong with their GI tract and/or skin, so it’s difficult to know what to measure. We’re trying to remedy this by gathering better natural history information on what happens to people. That is empowering for patients as well.
Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?
Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.
Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?
Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.
Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?
Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.
Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?
Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.
Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.
Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.
*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.
, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).
During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Q: What does this lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders mean to you at this stage in your career?
Dr. Woodcock: According to NORD, there are more than 7,000 rare diseases that affect an estimated 25 million Americans. More than half of those affected are children. Many of these diseases are very serious, so there is a great deal of suffering that goes on, sometimes for a lifetime. I’ve always felt that people suffering like this don’t really have a voice. I’ve always tried to push the regulatory science, the science behind evaluation, and all of the efforts we can make to help those who are trying to develop products for people suffering from these rare diseases. The science is really picking up. We’re seeing more drug approvals every year for rare disorders. Hopefully, the lives of people with rare disorders will improve and we will continue to see a trajectory of better outcomes for people.
Q: Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician? What was it about that person (or persons) that made a difference to you?
Dr. Woodcock: During my training I had the privilege to be exposed to a wide range of stellar diagnosticians and people who were good clinicians who cared about their patients. That experience modeled for me what I would like to be as a doctor.
Q: In 2017, the National Consumers League described you as “a passionate advocate for American patients and consumers, an ally to patient advocacy groups, and a fearless leader at the FDA.” In your own words, how do you describe your leadership style?
Dr. Woodcock: People always call me fearless, but I feel like I just state the facts. I care about getting technical input from everyone, but I’m not terribly concerned about people’s disapproval of my actions. I’m a leader who tries to do the right thing, the thing that will benefit patients. I try to keep them at the center of what we’re doing, who we’re regulating for. We work for the American public. As far as CDER, it’s the people who take medicine, people who administer medicine, and people who need treatments.
Q: Since joining CDER as director in 2008, what are some accomplishments you are most proud of as it relates to treatments for patients with rare diseases?
Dr. Woodcock: I undertook a transformation and modernization of the New Drugs Regulatory Program, which created offices that align interrelated disease areas, and divisions with clearer and more focused areas of expertise. These changes will bring efficiency and effectiveness. We also set up an Office of Translational Sciences. All of these actions are important. In developing drugs for rare disorders, we need more flexibility. We have a lot of critics who say, “Rare disease trials are too small.” If you look at a cardiovascular trial of 25,000 people, for example, the investigators might only have .1% of the affected population enrolled. On the other hand, a rare disease trial of 100 people might represent half of the entire population with that disease. We often get criticism because it’s more difficult to define endpoints. The diseases aren’t that well understood, and you’re going to have smaller trials because there aren’t that many people with the disease. We need to figure out how to appropriately exercise that flexibility in regulation and make sure people have access, but have a high probability of getting products that work and have been adequately tested for safely. We also started a Rare Disease Cures Accelerator, which is enrolling people online in natural history studies to see what happens to them so we can better plan studies. We have Patient-Focused Drug Development meetings as a way to gather patients’ perspectives on their conditions and available therapies to treat those conditions. That is eye-opening, because what the doctor thinks about the disease may not be what the patient thinks about the disease. The patients are the ones taking the medicine, so we need to collect their opinions. Such approaches make it easier to study rare diseases and get new treatments.
Q: How do the challenges of drug research and development in the field of rare diseases differ from those associated with more prevalent diseases?
Dr. Woodcock: There is one advantage today for people with rare diseases. That is, when there is a known genetic mutation causing a disease, RNA interference and other gene therapy approaches can be used. There are challenges, though. Patients with rare disorders often don’t have a uniform disease course. They often have a multisystem impact, so they might have things wrong with their GI tract and/or skin, so it’s difficult to know what to measure. We’re trying to remedy this by gathering better natural history information on what happens to people. That is empowering for patients as well.
Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?
Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.
Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?
Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.
Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?
Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.
Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?
Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.
Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.
Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.
*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.
, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).
During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Q: What does this lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders mean to you at this stage in your career?
Dr. Woodcock: According to NORD, there are more than 7,000 rare diseases that affect an estimated 25 million Americans. More than half of those affected are children. Many of these diseases are very serious, so there is a great deal of suffering that goes on, sometimes for a lifetime. I’ve always felt that people suffering like this don’t really have a voice. I’ve always tried to push the regulatory science, the science behind evaluation, and all of the efforts we can make to help those who are trying to develop products for people suffering from these rare diseases. The science is really picking up. We’re seeing more drug approvals every year for rare disorders. Hopefully, the lives of people with rare disorders will improve and we will continue to see a trajectory of better outcomes for people.
Q: Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician? What was it about that person (or persons) that made a difference to you?
Dr. Woodcock: During my training I had the privilege to be exposed to a wide range of stellar diagnosticians and people who were good clinicians who cared about their patients. That experience modeled for me what I would like to be as a doctor.
Q: In 2017, the National Consumers League described you as “a passionate advocate for American patients and consumers, an ally to patient advocacy groups, and a fearless leader at the FDA.” In your own words, how do you describe your leadership style?
Dr. Woodcock: People always call me fearless, but I feel like I just state the facts. I care about getting technical input from everyone, but I’m not terribly concerned about people’s disapproval of my actions. I’m a leader who tries to do the right thing, the thing that will benefit patients. I try to keep them at the center of what we’re doing, who we’re regulating for. We work for the American public. As far as CDER, it’s the people who take medicine, people who administer medicine, and people who need treatments.
Q: Since joining CDER as director in 2008, what are some accomplishments you are most proud of as it relates to treatments for patients with rare diseases?
Dr. Woodcock: I undertook a transformation and modernization of the New Drugs Regulatory Program, which created offices that align interrelated disease areas, and divisions with clearer and more focused areas of expertise. These changes will bring efficiency and effectiveness. We also set up an Office of Translational Sciences. All of these actions are important. In developing drugs for rare disorders, we need more flexibility. We have a lot of critics who say, “Rare disease trials are too small.” If you look at a cardiovascular trial of 25,000 people, for example, the investigators might only have .1% of the affected population enrolled. On the other hand, a rare disease trial of 100 people might represent half of the entire population with that disease. We often get criticism because it’s more difficult to define endpoints. The diseases aren’t that well understood, and you’re going to have smaller trials because there aren’t that many people with the disease. We need to figure out how to appropriately exercise that flexibility in regulation and make sure people have access, but have a high probability of getting products that work and have been adequately tested for safely. We also started a Rare Disease Cures Accelerator, which is enrolling people online in natural history studies to see what happens to them so we can better plan studies. We have Patient-Focused Drug Development meetings as a way to gather patients’ perspectives on their conditions and available therapies to treat those conditions. That is eye-opening, because what the doctor thinks about the disease may not be what the patient thinks about the disease. The patients are the ones taking the medicine, so we need to collect their opinions. Such approaches make it easier to study rare diseases and get new treatments.
Q: How do the challenges of drug research and development in the field of rare diseases differ from those associated with more prevalent diseases?
Dr. Woodcock: There is one advantage today for people with rare diseases. That is, when there is a known genetic mutation causing a disease, RNA interference and other gene therapy approaches can be used. There are challenges, though. Patients with rare disorders often don’t have a uniform disease course. They often have a multisystem impact, so they might have things wrong with their GI tract and/or skin, so it’s difficult to know what to measure. We’re trying to remedy this by gathering better natural history information on what happens to people. That is empowering for patients as well.
Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?
Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.
Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?
Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.
Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?
Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.
Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?
Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.
Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.
Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.
*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.
Surgeon general pushes for improved hypertension control
Roughly half of American adults have hypertension, and about 71% of these cases are uncontrolled, according to data from the American Heart Association.
If left uncontrolled, hypertension can increase risk for conditions including heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, pregnancy complications, and cognitive decline, surgeon general Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, MD, said in a teleconference on Oct. 7. Hispanic and Black individuals are disproportionately affected, he added.
“We cannot wait to deal with this epidemic of uncontrolled high blood pressure,” even in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Adams. “We know what works” to help control hypertension, he added, citing his own use of a blood pressure monitoring device at home.
The Department of Health & Human Services has issued a Call to Action to Control Hypertension based on the latest science and research.
Dr. Adams outlined three goals to improve hypertension control, starting with making it a national priority. The Call to Action supports increasing awareness of the health risks associated with hypertension, recognizing the economic impact, overcoming barriers to controlling hypertension, and promoting health equity.
“In 2020, disparities in the burden of disease – especially among minority populations – have been recognized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of evidence has shown that people with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, are at increased risk of worse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection,” according to the Call to Action.
A second goal is to build and sustain communities that support individuals in taking responsibility for their health and blood pressure control, Dr. Adams said. He cited the need to create places for safe physical activity, access to healthy food, and opportunities to connect to resources to support lifestyle changes.
Finally, clinicians should continue to use standardized treatment approaches and promote team-based care to maximize outcomes for patients, Dr. Adams said.
Success starts with making hypertension control a priority across the leadership team, regardless of the size, location, or demographic population at a health care setting, he said. Dr. Adams cited the Million Hearts 2022 program, an ongoing initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks in the United States over 5 years, as a way that HHS is recognizing and rewarding success stories in hypertension control from across the country.
Empowering patients and equipping them to take charge of their hypertension essential to reducing the epidemic of high blood pressure, especially during the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Adams said. His message to clinicians to extend to patients is that it is safe to visit their doctors. Hospitals have worked to create a safe environment, however, patients can and should monitor their blood pressure regularly at home, using a self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) device, which may be covered by some insurers.
“I would encourage people to know their numbers,” and that 130/80 mm Hg is considered high and a risk factor for poor health outcomes, Dr. Adams said. Clinicians also should continue to support patients in lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercising regularly to help control high blood pressure.
The AHA expressed support for the surgeon general’s Call to Action. “Today’s call to action references updated hypertension guidelines the AHA and the American College of Cardiology issued in 2017 that apply the latest science to help clinicians work with patients to control their blood pressure,” the AHA said in a statement. The AHA also called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other insurance providers “to include coverage of SMBP devices for treatment and management of hypertension.”
The Call to Action was accompanied by a Viewpoint from Dr. Adams and Janet S. Wright, MD, also of the HHS, published in JAMA. Dr. Adams and Dr. Wright emphasized that the timing of the Call to Action recognizes that many of the same social factors that support or impede successful high blood pressure control are factors in worse outcomes from COVID-19 infections as well.
“When coupled with widespread implementation of best practices in clinical settings and empowering individuals to actively manage their blood pressure, acknowledging and addressing a community’s social conditions may generate sustained improvements in control of both hypertension and COVID-19,” they said.
Read and download the full Call to Action here, and read the Executive Summary at hhs.gov.
Roughly half of American adults have hypertension, and about 71% of these cases are uncontrolled, according to data from the American Heart Association.
If left uncontrolled, hypertension can increase risk for conditions including heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, pregnancy complications, and cognitive decline, surgeon general Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, MD, said in a teleconference on Oct. 7. Hispanic and Black individuals are disproportionately affected, he added.
“We cannot wait to deal with this epidemic of uncontrolled high blood pressure,” even in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Adams. “We know what works” to help control hypertension, he added, citing his own use of a blood pressure monitoring device at home.
The Department of Health & Human Services has issued a Call to Action to Control Hypertension based on the latest science and research.
Dr. Adams outlined three goals to improve hypertension control, starting with making it a national priority. The Call to Action supports increasing awareness of the health risks associated with hypertension, recognizing the economic impact, overcoming barriers to controlling hypertension, and promoting health equity.
“In 2020, disparities in the burden of disease – especially among minority populations – have been recognized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of evidence has shown that people with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, are at increased risk of worse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection,” according to the Call to Action.
A second goal is to build and sustain communities that support individuals in taking responsibility for their health and blood pressure control, Dr. Adams said. He cited the need to create places for safe physical activity, access to healthy food, and opportunities to connect to resources to support lifestyle changes.
Finally, clinicians should continue to use standardized treatment approaches and promote team-based care to maximize outcomes for patients, Dr. Adams said.
Success starts with making hypertension control a priority across the leadership team, regardless of the size, location, or demographic population at a health care setting, he said. Dr. Adams cited the Million Hearts 2022 program, an ongoing initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks in the United States over 5 years, as a way that HHS is recognizing and rewarding success stories in hypertension control from across the country.
Empowering patients and equipping them to take charge of their hypertension essential to reducing the epidemic of high blood pressure, especially during the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Adams said. His message to clinicians to extend to patients is that it is safe to visit their doctors. Hospitals have worked to create a safe environment, however, patients can and should monitor their blood pressure regularly at home, using a self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) device, which may be covered by some insurers.
“I would encourage people to know their numbers,” and that 130/80 mm Hg is considered high and a risk factor for poor health outcomes, Dr. Adams said. Clinicians also should continue to support patients in lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercising regularly to help control high blood pressure.
The AHA expressed support for the surgeon general’s Call to Action. “Today’s call to action references updated hypertension guidelines the AHA and the American College of Cardiology issued in 2017 that apply the latest science to help clinicians work with patients to control their blood pressure,” the AHA said in a statement. The AHA also called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other insurance providers “to include coverage of SMBP devices for treatment and management of hypertension.”
The Call to Action was accompanied by a Viewpoint from Dr. Adams and Janet S. Wright, MD, also of the HHS, published in JAMA. Dr. Adams and Dr. Wright emphasized that the timing of the Call to Action recognizes that many of the same social factors that support or impede successful high blood pressure control are factors in worse outcomes from COVID-19 infections as well.
“When coupled with widespread implementation of best practices in clinical settings and empowering individuals to actively manage their blood pressure, acknowledging and addressing a community’s social conditions may generate sustained improvements in control of both hypertension and COVID-19,” they said.
Read and download the full Call to Action here, and read the Executive Summary at hhs.gov.
Roughly half of American adults have hypertension, and about 71% of these cases are uncontrolled, according to data from the American Heart Association.
If left uncontrolled, hypertension can increase risk for conditions including heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, pregnancy complications, and cognitive decline, surgeon general Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, MD, said in a teleconference on Oct. 7. Hispanic and Black individuals are disproportionately affected, he added.
“We cannot wait to deal with this epidemic of uncontrolled high blood pressure,” even in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Adams. “We know what works” to help control hypertension, he added, citing his own use of a blood pressure monitoring device at home.
The Department of Health & Human Services has issued a Call to Action to Control Hypertension based on the latest science and research.
Dr. Adams outlined three goals to improve hypertension control, starting with making it a national priority. The Call to Action supports increasing awareness of the health risks associated with hypertension, recognizing the economic impact, overcoming barriers to controlling hypertension, and promoting health equity.
“In 2020, disparities in the burden of disease – especially among minority populations – have been recognized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of evidence has shown that people with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, are at increased risk of worse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection,” according to the Call to Action.
A second goal is to build and sustain communities that support individuals in taking responsibility for their health and blood pressure control, Dr. Adams said. He cited the need to create places for safe physical activity, access to healthy food, and opportunities to connect to resources to support lifestyle changes.
Finally, clinicians should continue to use standardized treatment approaches and promote team-based care to maximize outcomes for patients, Dr. Adams said.
Success starts with making hypertension control a priority across the leadership team, regardless of the size, location, or demographic population at a health care setting, he said. Dr. Adams cited the Million Hearts 2022 program, an ongoing initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks in the United States over 5 years, as a way that HHS is recognizing and rewarding success stories in hypertension control from across the country.
Empowering patients and equipping them to take charge of their hypertension essential to reducing the epidemic of high blood pressure, especially during the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Adams said. His message to clinicians to extend to patients is that it is safe to visit their doctors. Hospitals have worked to create a safe environment, however, patients can and should monitor their blood pressure regularly at home, using a self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) device, which may be covered by some insurers.
“I would encourage people to know their numbers,” and that 130/80 mm Hg is considered high and a risk factor for poor health outcomes, Dr. Adams said. Clinicians also should continue to support patients in lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercising regularly to help control high blood pressure.
The AHA expressed support for the surgeon general’s Call to Action. “Today’s call to action references updated hypertension guidelines the AHA and the American College of Cardiology issued in 2017 that apply the latest science to help clinicians work with patients to control their blood pressure,” the AHA said in a statement. The AHA also called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other insurance providers “to include coverage of SMBP devices for treatment and management of hypertension.”
The Call to Action was accompanied by a Viewpoint from Dr. Adams and Janet S. Wright, MD, also of the HHS, published in JAMA. Dr. Adams and Dr. Wright emphasized that the timing of the Call to Action recognizes that many of the same social factors that support or impede successful high blood pressure control are factors in worse outcomes from COVID-19 infections as well.
“When coupled with widespread implementation of best practices in clinical settings and empowering individuals to actively manage their blood pressure, acknowledging and addressing a community’s social conditions may generate sustained improvements in control of both hypertension and COVID-19,” they said.
Read and download the full Call to Action here, and read the Executive Summary at hhs.gov.
CDC flips, acknowledges aerosol spread of COVID-19
The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”
In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”
“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.
The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
Information deleted from website last month
On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”
The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.
A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”
The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.
It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.
The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”
Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.
The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”
Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.
Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.
“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”
In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”
“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.
The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
Information deleted from website last month
On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”
The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.
A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”
The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.
It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.
The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”
Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.
The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”
Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.
Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.
“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”
In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”
“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.
The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
Information deleted from website last month
On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”
The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.
A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”
The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.
It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.
The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”
Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.
The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”
Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.
Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.
“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Inside the flawed White House testing scheme that did not protect Trump
The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.
The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests.
An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.
Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.
The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials.
The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.
The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.
Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.
Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.
“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”
The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.
However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.
“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.
Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.
At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.
“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.
Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.
He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.
While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.
“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.
Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.
It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”
In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.
“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.
Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.
Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.
“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.
The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests.
An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.
Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.
The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials.
The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.
The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.
Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.
Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.
“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”
The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.
However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.
“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.
Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.
At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.
“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.
Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.
He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.
While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.
“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.
Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.
It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”
In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.
“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.
Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.
Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.
“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.
The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests.
An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.
Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.
The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials.
The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.
The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.
Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.
Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.
“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”
The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.
However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.
“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.
Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.
At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.
“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.
Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.
He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.
While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.
“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.
Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.
It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”
In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.
“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.
Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.
Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.
“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
‘Celebration’ will be ‘short-lived’ if COVID vaccine rushed: Experts
on Wednesday.
The career staff of the Food and Drug Administration can be counted on to appropriately weigh whether a vaccine should be cleared for use in preventing COVID-19, witnesses, including Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations panel.
FDA staffers would object to attempts by the Trump administration to rush a vaccine to the public without proper vetting, as would veteran federal researchers, including National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, and Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Offit said.
“If COVID-19 vaccines are released before they’re ready to be released, you will hear from these people, and you will also hear from people like Dr. Francis Collins and Tony Fauci, both of whom are trusted by the American public, as well as many other academicians and researchers who wouldn’t stand for this,” he said.
“The public is already nervous about these vaccines,” said Offit, who serves on key FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committees overseeing vaccine policy. “If trusted health officials stand up and decry a premature release, the celebration by the administration will be short-lived.”
Overly optimistic estimates about a potential approval can only serve to erode the public’s trust in these crucial vaccines, said another witness, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, in Providence, Rhode Island.
“All political leaders need to stop talking about things like time lines,” Jha told the lawmakers.
President Donald Trump has several times suggested that a COVID vaccine might be approved ahead of the November 3 election, where he faces a significant challenge from his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
In a Tuesday night debate with Biden, Trump again raised the idea of a quick approval. “Now we’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said during the debate.
Trump’s estimates, though, are not in line with those offered by most firms involved with making vaccines. The most optimistic projections have come from Pfizer Inc. The drugmaker’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, has spoken about his company possibly having data to present to the FDA as early as late October about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.
In a September 8 interview with the Today show, Bourla said there was a 60% chance his company would meet that goal. In response to a question, he made it clear his comments applied to a potential Pfizer application, not an approval or release of a vaccine by that time.
In response to concerns about political pressures, the FDA in June issued guidance outlining what its staff would require for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Pushback on politics
Another witness at the Wednesday hearing, Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, a former FDA commissioner (2002 – 2004), pushed back on objections to a potential release of further guidance from the agency.
“Some recent statements from the White House have implied that FDA’s plan to release additional written guidance on its expectations for emergency use authorization of a vaccine is unnecessarily raising the bar on regulatory standards for authorization,” said McClellan in his testimony for the House panel. “That is not the case.”
Instead, further FDA guidance would be a welcome form of feedback for the firms trying to develop COVID-19 vaccines, according to McClellan, who also serves on the board of directors for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson is among the firms that have advanced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate to phase 3 testing. In his role as a director, he serves on the board’s regulatory compliance committee.
Along with politics, recent stumbles at FDA with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of treatments for COVID-19 have eroded the public’s confidence in the agency, Jha told the House panel. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, a medicine promoted by Trump for use in COVID, under an EUA in March and then revoked this clearance in June.
Jha said the FDA’s most serious misstep was its handling of convalescent plasma, which was approved through an EUA on August 23 “in a highly advertised and widely televised announcement including the president.
“The announcement solidified in the public conversation the impression that, increasingly with this administration, politics are taking over trusted, nonpartisan scientific institutions,” he said in his testimony.
Approving a COVID-19 vaccine on the limited evidence through an EUA would mark a serious departure from FDA policy, according to Jha.
“While we sometimes accept a certain level of potential harm in experimental treatments for those who are severely ill, vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore need to have a substantially higher measure of safety and effectiveness,” he explained.
Jha said the FDA has only once before used this EUA approach for a vaccine. That was for a vaccine against inhaled anthrax and was mostly distributed to high-risk soldiers and civilians in war zones.
COVID-19, in contrast, is an infection that has changed lives around the world. The virus has contributed to more than 1 million deaths, including more than 200,000 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization.
Scientists are hoping vaccines will help curb this infection, although much of the future success of vaccines depends on how widely they are used, witnesses told the House panel.
Debate on approaches for vaccine effectiveness
In his testimony, Jha also noted concerns about COVID-19 vaccine trials. He included a reference to a Sept. 22 opinion article titled, “These Coronavirus Trials Don›t Answer the One Question We Need to Know,” which was written by Peter Doshi, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, in Baltimore, and Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.
Topol and Doshi questioned why the firms Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca structured their competing trials such that “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”
“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick,” Topol and Doshi wrote. “That’s not what these trials will determine.”
There was disagreement about this point at the hearing. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) read the section of the Doshi-Topol article quoted above and asked one witness, Offit, to weigh in.
“Do you agree with those concerns? And either way, tell me why,” Griffith asked.
“I don’t agree,” Offit responded.
“I think it’s actually much harder to prevent asymptomatic infection or mildly symptomatic infection,” he said. “If you can prevent that, you are much more likely to prevent moderate to severe disease. So I think they have it backwards.”
But other researchers also question the approaches used with the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.
“With the current protocols, it is conceivable that a vaccine might be considered effective – and eventually approved – based primarily on its ability to prevent mild cases alone,” wrote William Haseltine, PhD, president of the nonprofit ACCESS Health International, in a September 22 opinion article in the Washington Post titled: “Beware of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Designed to Succeed From the Start.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News on Wednesday, Haseltine said he maintains these concerns about the tests. Earlier in his career, he was a leader in HIV research through his lab at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he subsequently led a biotech company, Human Genome Sciences.
He fears consumers will not get what they might expect from the vaccines being tested.
“What people care about is if this is going to keep them out of the hospital and will it keep them alive. And that’s not even part of this protocol,” Haseltine said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
on Wednesday.
The career staff of the Food and Drug Administration can be counted on to appropriately weigh whether a vaccine should be cleared for use in preventing COVID-19, witnesses, including Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations panel.
FDA staffers would object to attempts by the Trump administration to rush a vaccine to the public without proper vetting, as would veteran federal researchers, including National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, and Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Offit said.
“If COVID-19 vaccines are released before they’re ready to be released, you will hear from these people, and you will also hear from people like Dr. Francis Collins and Tony Fauci, both of whom are trusted by the American public, as well as many other academicians and researchers who wouldn’t stand for this,” he said.
“The public is already nervous about these vaccines,” said Offit, who serves on key FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committees overseeing vaccine policy. “If trusted health officials stand up and decry a premature release, the celebration by the administration will be short-lived.”
Overly optimistic estimates about a potential approval can only serve to erode the public’s trust in these crucial vaccines, said another witness, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, in Providence, Rhode Island.
“All political leaders need to stop talking about things like time lines,” Jha told the lawmakers.
President Donald Trump has several times suggested that a COVID vaccine might be approved ahead of the November 3 election, where he faces a significant challenge from his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
In a Tuesday night debate with Biden, Trump again raised the idea of a quick approval. “Now we’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said during the debate.
Trump’s estimates, though, are not in line with those offered by most firms involved with making vaccines. The most optimistic projections have come from Pfizer Inc. The drugmaker’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, has spoken about his company possibly having data to present to the FDA as early as late October about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.
In a September 8 interview with the Today show, Bourla said there was a 60% chance his company would meet that goal. In response to a question, he made it clear his comments applied to a potential Pfizer application, not an approval or release of a vaccine by that time.
In response to concerns about political pressures, the FDA in June issued guidance outlining what its staff would require for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Pushback on politics
Another witness at the Wednesday hearing, Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, a former FDA commissioner (2002 – 2004), pushed back on objections to a potential release of further guidance from the agency.
“Some recent statements from the White House have implied that FDA’s plan to release additional written guidance on its expectations for emergency use authorization of a vaccine is unnecessarily raising the bar on regulatory standards for authorization,” said McClellan in his testimony for the House panel. “That is not the case.”
Instead, further FDA guidance would be a welcome form of feedback for the firms trying to develop COVID-19 vaccines, according to McClellan, who also serves on the board of directors for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson is among the firms that have advanced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate to phase 3 testing. In his role as a director, he serves on the board’s regulatory compliance committee.
Along with politics, recent stumbles at FDA with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of treatments for COVID-19 have eroded the public’s confidence in the agency, Jha told the House panel. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, a medicine promoted by Trump for use in COVID, under an EUA in March and then revoked this clearance in June.
Jha said the FDA’s most serious misstep was its handling of convalescent plasma, which was approved through an EUA on August 23 “in a highly advertised and widely televised announcement including the president.
“The announcement solidified in the public conversation the impression that, increasingly with this administration, politics are taking over trusted, nonpartisan scientific institutions,” he said in his testimony.
Approving a COVID-19 vaccine on the limited evidence through an EUA would mark a serious departure from FDA policy, according to Jha.
“While we sometimes accept a certain level of potential harm in experimental treatments for those who are severely ill, vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore need to have a substantially higher measure of safety and effectiveness,” he explained.
Jha said the FDA has only once before used this EUA approach for a vaccine. That was for a vaccine against inhaled anthrax and was mostly distributed to high-risk soldiers and civilians in war zones.
COVID-19, in contrast, is an infection that has changed lives around the world. The virus has contributed to more than 1 million deaths, including more than 200,000 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization.
Scientists are hoping vaccines will help curb this infection, although much of the future success of vaccines depends on how widely they are used, witnesses told the House panel.
Debate on approaches for vaccine effectiveness
In his testimony, Jha also noted concerns about COVID-19 vaccine trials. He included a reference to a Sept. 22 opinion article titled, “These Coronavirus Trials Don›t Answer the One Question We Need to Know,” which was written by Peter Doshi, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, in Baltimore, and Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.
Topol and Doshi questioned why the firms Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca structured their competing trials such that “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”
“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick,” Topol and Doshi wrote. “That’s not what these trials will determine.”
There was disagreement about this point at the hearing. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) read the section of the Doshi-Topol article quoted above and asked one witness, Offit, to weigh in.
“Do you agree with those concerns? And either way, tell me why,” Griffith asked.
“I don’t agree,” Offit responded.
“I think it’s actually much harder to prevent asymptomatic infection or mildly symptomatic infection,” he said. “If you can prevent that, you are much more likely to prevent moderate to severe disease. So I think they have it backwards.”
But other researchers also question the approaches used with the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.
“With the current protocols, it is conceivable that a vaccine might be considered effective – and eventually approved – based primarily on its ability to prevent mild cases alone,” wrote William Haseltine, PhD, president of the nonprofit ACCESS Health International, in a September 22 opinion article in the Washington Post titled: “Beware of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Designed to Succeed From the Start.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News on Wednesday, Haseltine said he maintains these concerns about the tests. Earlier in his career, he was a leader in HIV research through his lab at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he subsequently led a biotech company, Human Genome Sciences.
He fears consumers will not get what they might expect from the vaccines being tested.
“What people care about is if this is going to keep them out of the hospital and will it keep them alive. And that’s not even part of this protocol,” Haseltine said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
on Wednesday.
The career staff of the Food and Drug Administration can be counted on to appropriately weigh whether a vaccine should be cleared for use in preventing COVID-19, witnesses, including Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations panel.
FDA staffers would object to attempts by the Trump administration to rush a vaccine to the public without proper vetting, as would veteran federal researchers, including National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, and Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Offit said.
“If COVID-19 vaccines are released before they’re ready to be released, you will hear from these people, and you will also hear from people like Dr. Francis Collins and Tony Fauci, both of whom are trusted by the American public, as well as many other academicians and researchers who wouldn’t stand for this,” he said.
“The public is already nervous about these vaccines,” said Offit, who serves on key FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committees overseeing vaccine policy. “If trusted health officials stand up and decry a premature release, the celebration by the administration will be short-lived.”
Overly optimistic estimates about a potential approval can only serve to erode the public’s trust in these crucial vaccines, said another witness, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, in Providence, Rhode Island.
“All political leaders need to stop talking about things like time lines,” Jha told the lawmakers.
President Donald Trump has several times suggested that a COVID vaccine might be approved ahead of the November 3 election, where he faces a significant challenge from his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
In a Tuesday night debate with Biden, Trump again raised the idea of a quick approval. “Now we’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said during the debate.
Trump’s estimates, though, are not in line with those offered by most firms involved with making vaccines. The most optimistic projections have come from Pfizer Inc. The drugmaker’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, has spoken about his company possibly having data to present to the FDA as early as late October about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.
In a September 8 interview with the Today show, Bourla said there was a 60% chance his company would meet that goal. In response to a question, he made it clear his comments applied to a potential Pfizer application, not an approval or release of a vaccine by that time.
In response to concerns about political pressures, the FDA in June issued guidance outlining what its staff would require for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Pushback on politics
Another witness at the Wednesday hearing, Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, a former FDA commissioner (2002 – 2004), pushed back on objections to a potential release of further guidance from the agency.
“Some recent statements from the White House have implied that FDA’s plan to release additional written guidance on its expectations for emergency use authorization of a vaccine is unnecessarily raising the bar on regulatory standards for authorization,” said McClellan in his testimony for the House panel. “That is not the case.”
Instead, further FDA guidance would be a welcome form of feedback for the firms trying to develop COVID-19 vaccines, according to McClellan, who also serves on the board of directors for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson is among the firms that have advanced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate to phase 3 testing. In his role as a director, he serves on the board’s regulatory compliance committee.
Along with politics, recent stumbles at FDA with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of treatments for COVID-19 have eroded the public’s confidence in the agency, Jha told the House panel. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, a medicine promoted by Trump for use in COVID, under an EUA in March and then revoked this clearance in June.
Jha said the FDA’s most serious misstep was its handling of convalescent plasma, which was approved through an EUA on August 23 “in a highly advertised and widely televised announcement including the president.
“The announcement solidified in the public conversation the impression that, increasingly with this administration, politics are taking over trusted, nonpartisan scientific institutions,” he said in his testimony.
Approving a COVID-19 vaccine on the limited evidence through an EUA would mark a serious departure from FDA policy, according to Jha.
“While we sometimes accept a certain level of potential harm in experimental treatments for those who are severely ill, vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore need to have a substantially higher measure of safety and effectiveness,” he explained.
Jha said the FDA has only once before used this EUA approach for a vaccine. That was for a vaccine against inhaled anthrax and was mostly distributed to high-risk soldiers and civilians in war zones.
COVID-19, in contrast, is an infection that has changed lives around the world. The virus has contributed to more than 1 million deaths, including more than 200,000 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization.
Scientists are hoping vaccines will help curb this infection, although much of the future success of vaccines depends on how widely they are used, witnesses told the House panel.
Debate on approaches for vaccine effectiveness
In his testimony, Jha also noted concerns about COVID-19 vaccine trials. He included a reference to a Sept. 22 opinion article titled, “These Coronavirus Trials Don›t Answer the One Question We Need to Know,” which was written by Peter Doshi, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, in Baltimore, and Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.
Topol and Doshi questioned why the firms Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca structured their competing trials such that “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”
“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick,” Topol and Doshi wrote. “That’s not what these trials will determine.”
There was disagreement about this point at the hearing. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) read the section of the Doshi-Topol article quoted above and asked one witness, Offit, to weigh in.
“Do you agree with those concerns? And either way, tell me why,” Griffith asked.
“I don’t agree,” Offit responded.
“I think it’s actually much harder to prevent asymptomatic infection or mildly symptomatic infection,” he said. “If you can prevent that, you are much more likely to prevent moderate to severe disease. So I think they have it backwards.”
But other researchers also question the approaches used with the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.
“With the current protocols, it is conceivable that a vaccine might be considered effective – and eventually approved – based primarily on its ability to prevent mild cases alone,” wrote William Haseltine, PhD, president of the nonprofit ACCESS Health International, in a September 22 opinion article in the Washington Post titled: “Beware of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Designed to Succeed From the Start.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News on Wednesday, Haseltine said he maintains these concerns about the tests. Earlier in his career, he was a leader in HIV research through his lab at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he subsequently led a biotech company, Human Genome Sciences.
He fears consumers will not get what they might expect from the vaccines being tested.
“What people care about is if this is going to keep them out of the hospital and will it keep them alive. And that’s not even part of this protocol,” Haseltine said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Overwhelming evidence’ FDA’s opioid approval process is shoddy
Despite the ongoing epidemic of misuse, overuse, and diversion of opioids, the Food and Drug Administration has set a low bar for approval of these medications over the past 20 years, new research suggests.
The study results also show that the FDA did not require manufacturers to collect safety data on tolerance, withdrawal, overdose, misuse, and diversion in any rigorous fashion.
In addition, during the study period, 17 of the 39 new drug applications (NDAs) (only one was an innovator product, known as a new molecular entity) for chronic pain were approved with an “enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal” (EERW) trial design. Such a design, in this case, allowed manufacturers to exclude 32%-43% of the initially enrolled patients from the double-blind treatment phase.
“The question for regulators, policy makers, and others is: How did we get to a point where these approvals took place based on trials that were by design unlikely to yield some of the most important information about safety and efficacy that patients and clinicians would care about?” study investigator G. Caleb Alexander, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.
The study was published online Sept. 29 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
‘Cooking the books’
Little is known about the evidence required by the FDA for new approvals of opioid analgesics.
To characterize the quality of safety and efficacy data in NDAs for opioid analgesics approved by the FDA between 1997 and 2018, the investigators conducted the cross-sectional analysis using data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA reviews, and peer-reviewed publications regarding phase 3 pivotal trials.
The investigators examined the key characteristics of each NDA, including the number, size, and duration of pivotal trials, trial control groups, use of EERW, and systematically measured safety outcomes.
Results showed that most of the 48 NDAs evaluated were for new dosage forms (52.1%) or new formulations (18.8%). Only one (2.1%) was for a new molecular entity.
Of 39 NDAs approved for the treatment of chronic pain, only 21 products were supported by at least one pivotal trial. The mean duration of these 28 trials was 84 days, and they enrolled a median of 299 patients.
Results showed that, for 17 of the 39 opioids approved for chronic pain, pivotal trials had an EERW design. For the latest period – 2012-2018 – trials of all eight of the approved opioids used the EERW method.
This EERW design allows the manufacturer to assess efficacy “among a subset of patients most likely to respond and least likely to have adverse effects, reducing generalizability to real-world settings,” the investigators noted.
They called on the FDA to stop relying on this type of trial to assess opioid efficacy.
In an August 2020 article, Andrew Kolodny, MD, pointed out the pitfalls of the EERW approach. In such a study, all participants are made physiologically dependent on the opioid in a 4- to 6-week open-label phase. Only those who tolerate the drug and find it helpful are included in the randomized study. Dr. Kolodny is codirector of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.
“Critics of EERW have correctly described this methodology as ‘cooking the books,’ ” Dr. Kolodny writes.
He noted that the agency’s decision to rely on EERW trials for opioids was “based on discussions at private meetings between FDA officials and pharmaceutical company executives hosted by an organization called Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials.” The 2013 meetings were reported in an article published in the Washington Post.
Little sign of change
Among NDAs for chronic pain, the investigators found that eight (20.5%) included pooled safety reviews that reported systematic assessment of diversion. Seven (17.9%) reported systematic measurement of nonmedical use, and 15 (38.5%) assessed incident tolerance.
The study revealed that eight of nine products that were approved for acute pain were supported by at least one pivotal trial. The median duration of these 19 trials was 1 day, and they enrolled a median of 329 patients.
The investigators noted that the findings “underscore the evidence gaps that have limited clinicians’ and patients’ understanding and appreciation of the inherent risks of prescription opioid analgesics.”
Dr. Alexander, who has been an FDA advisory committee chairman and currently serves as a consultant to plaintiffs who are suing opioid manufacturers in federal multidistrict litigation, said the study “is a story about missed opportunities to improve the safety and to improve the regulatory review of these products.”
Coinvestigator Peter Lurie, MD, who was an official at the FDA from 2009 to 2017, said that “there’s not a lot of signs that things are changing” at the agency.
The study shows that the FDA has “accepted what the companies have been presenting,” said Dr. Lurie, who is president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
The FDA “absolutely has the authority” to require manufacturers to undertake more rigorous trials, but agency culture keeps it from making such demands, especially if doing so means a new applicant might have to conduct trials that weren’t previously required, Dr. Lurie said in an interview.
“FDA is pretty rigorous about trying to establish a level playing field. That’s a virtuous thing, but it becomes problematic when that prevents change,” said Dr. Lurie.
The most recent FDA guidance to manufacturers, issued in 2019, does not provide advice on criteria for endpoints, study duration, or which populations are most likely to benefit from opioid treatment. The agency also does not require drug manufacturers to formally collect data on safety, tolerance, overdose symptoms, or constipation.
The guidance does suggest that the agency would likely take into account public health considerations when evaluating opioids, such as the risk to the overall population for overdose and diversion.
‘Overwhelming evidence’
Dr. Kolodny said that, as far as he is aware, “this is the first scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal demonstrating clearly the problems with FDA’s opioid approval process.”
The article offers “overwhelming evidence that they are improperly approving the most dangerous medications – medications that killed more people than any other medication on the market,” added Dr. Kolodny, who is also president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing.
Asked to respond to the study findings, FDA spokesperson Charles Kohler said the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite the ongoing epidemic of misuse, overuse, and diversion of opioids, the Food and Drug Administration has set a low bar for approval of these medications over the past 20 years, new research suggests.
The study results also show that the FDA did not require manufacturers to collect safety data on tolerance, withdrawal, overdose, misuse, and diversion in any rigorous fashion.
In addition, during the study period, 17 of the 39 new drug applications (NDAs) (only one was an innovator product, known as a new molecular entity) for chronic pain were approved with an “enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal” (EERW) trial design. Such a design, in this case, allowed manufacturers to exclude 32%-43% of the initially enrolled patients from the double-blind treatment phase.
“The question for regulators, policy makers, and others is: How did we get to a point where these approvals took place based on trials that were by design unlikely to yield some of the most important information about safety and efficacy that patients and clinicians would care about?” study investigator G. Caleb Alexander, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.
The study was published online Sept. 29 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
‘Cooking the books’
Little is known about the evidence required by the FDA for new approvals of opioid analgesics.
To characterize the quality of safety and efficacy data in NDAs for opioid analgesics approved by the FDA between 1997 and 2018, the investigators conducted the cross-sectional analysis using data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA reviews, and peer-reviewed publications regarding phase 3 pivotal trials.
The investigators examined the key characteristics of each NDA, including the number, size, and duration of pivotal trials, trial control groups, use of EERW, and systematically measured safety outcomes.
Results showed that most of the 48 NDAs evaluated were for new dosage forms (52.1%) or new formulations (18.8%). Only one (2.1%) was for a new molecular entity.
Of 39 NDAs approved for the treatment of chronic pain, only 21 products were supported by at least one pivotal trial. The mean duration of these 28 trials was 84 days, and they enrolled a median of 299 patients.
Results showed that, for 17 of the 39 opioids approved for chronic pain, pivotal trials had an EERW design. For the latest period – 2012-2018 – trials of all eight of the approved opioids used the EERW method.
This EERW design allows the manufacturer to assess efficacy “among a subset of patients most likely to respond and least likely to have adverse effects, reducing generalizability to real-world settings,” the investigators noted.
They called on the FDA to stop relying on this type of trial to assess opioid efficacy.
In an August 2020 article, Andrew Kolodny, MD, pointed out the pitfalls of the EERW approach. In such a study, all participants are made physiologically dependent on the opioid in a 4- to 6-week open-label phase. Only those who tolerate the drug and find it helpful are included in the randomized study. Dr. Kolodny is codirector of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.
“Critics of EERW have correctly described this methodology as ‘cooking the books,’ ” Dr. Kolodny writes.
He noted that the agency’s decision to rely on EERW trials for opioids was “based on discussions at private meetings between FDA officials and pharmaceutical company executives hosted by an organization called Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials.” The 2013 meetings were reported in an article published in the Washington Post.
Little sign of change
Among NDAs for chronic pain, the investigators found that eight (20.5%) included pooled safety reviews that reported systematic assessment of diversion. Seven (17.9%) reported systematic measurement of nonmedical use, and 15 (38.5%) assessed incident tolerance.
The study revealed that eight of nine products that were approved for acute pain were supported by at least one pivotal trial. The median duration of these 19 trials was 1 day, and they enrolled a median of 329 patients.
The investigators noted that the findings “underscore the evidence gaps that have limited clinicians’ and patients’ understanding and appreciation of the inherent risks of prescription opioid analgesics.”
Dr. Alexander, who has been an FDA advisory committee chairman and currently serves as a consultant to plaintiffs who are suing opioid manufacturers in federal multidistrict litigation, said the study “is a story about missed opportunities to improve the safety and to improve the regulatory review of these products.”
Coinvestigator Peter Lurie, MD, who was an official at the FDA from 2009 to 2017, said that “there’s not a lot of signs that things are changing” at the agency.
The study shows that the FDA has “accepted what the companies have been presenting,” said Dr. Lurie, who is president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
The FDA “absolutely has the authority” to require manufacturers to undertake more rigorous trials, but agency culture keeps it from making such demands, especially if doing so means a new applicant might have to conduct trials that weren’t previously required, Dr. Lurie said in an interview.
“FDA is pretty rigorous about trying to establish a level playing field. That’s a virtuous thing, but it becomes problematic when that prevents change,” said Dr. Lurie.
The most recent FDA guidance to manufacturers, issued in 2019, does not provide advice on criteria for endpoints, study duration, or which populations are most likely to benefit from opioid treatment. The agency also does not require drug manufacturers to formally collect data on safety, tolerance, overdose symptoms, or constipation.
The guidance does suggest that the agency would likely take into account public health considerations when evaluating opioids, such as the risk to the overall population for overdose and diversion.
‘Overwhelming evidence’
Dr. Kolodny said that, as far as he is aware, “this is the first scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal demonstrating clearly the problems with FDA’s opioid approval process.”
The article offers “overwhelming evidence that they are improperly approving the most dangerous medications – medications that killed more people than any other medication on the market,” added Dr. Kolodny, who is also president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing.
Asked to respond to the study findings, FDA spokesperson Charles Kohler said the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite the ongoing epidemic of misuse, overuse, and diversion of opioids, the Food and Drug Administration has set a low bar for approval of these medications over the past 20 years, new research suggests.
The study results also show that the FDA did not require manufacturers to collect safety data on tolerance, withdrawal, overdose, misuse, and diversion in any rigorous fashion.
In addition, during the study period, 17 of the 39 new drug applications (NDAs) (only one was an innovator product, known as a new molecular entity) for chronic pain were approved with an “enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal” (EERW) trial design. Such a design, in this case, allowed manufacturers to exclude 32%-43% of the initially enrolled patients from the double-blind treatment phase.
“The question for regulators, policy makers, and others is: How did we get to a point where these approvals took place based on trials that were by design unlikely to yield some of the most important information about safety and efficacy that patients and clinicians would care about?” study investigator G. Caleb Alexander, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.
The study was published online Sept. 29 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
‘Cooking the books’
Little is known about the evidence required by the FDA for new approvals of opioid analgesics.
To characterize the quality of safety and efficacy data in NDAs for opioid analgesics approved by the FDA between 1997 and 2018, the investigators conducted the cross-sectional analysis using data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA reviews, and peer-reviewed publications regarding phase 3 pivotal trials.
The investigators examined the key characteristics of each NDA, including the number, size, and duration of pivotal trials, trial control groups, use of EERW, and systematically measured safety outcomes.
Results showed that most of the 48 NDAs evaluated were for new dosage forms (52.1%) or new formulations (18.8%). Only one (2.1%) was for a new molecular entity.
Of 39 NDAs approved for the treatment of chronic pain, only 21 products were supported by at least one pivotal trial. The mean duration of these 28 trials was 84 days, and they enrolled a median of 299 patients.
Results showed that, for 17 of the 39 opioids approved for chronic pain, pivotal trials had an EERW design. For the latest period – 2012-2018 – trials of all eight of the approved opioids used the EERW method.
This EERW design allows the manufacturer to assess efficacy “among a subset of patients most likely to respond and least likely to have adverse effects, reducing generalizability to real-world settings,” the investigators noted.
They called on the FDA to stop relying on this type of trial to assess opioid efficacy.
In an August 2020 article, Andrew Kolodny, MD, pointed out the pitfalls of the EERW approach. In such a study, all participants are made physiologically dependent on the opioid in a 4- to 6-week open-label phase. Only those who tolerate the drug and find it helpful are included in the randomized study. Dr. Kolodny is codirector of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.
“Critics of EERW have correctly described this methodology as ‘cooking the books,’ ” Dr. Kolodny writes.
He noted that the agency’s decision to rely on EERW trials for opioids was “based on discussions at private meetings between FDA officials and pharmaceutical company executives hosted by an organization called Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials.” The 2013 meetings were reported in an article published in the Washington Post.
Little sign of change
Among NDAs for chronic pain, the investigators found that eight (20.5%) included pooled safety reviews that reported systematic assessment of diversion. Seven (17.9%) reported systematic measurement of nonmedical use, and 15 (38.5%) assessed incident tolerance.
The study revealed that eight of nine products that were approved for acute pain were supported by at least one pivotal trial. The median duration of these 19 trials was 1 day, and they enrolled a median of 329 patients.
The investigators noted that the findings “underscore the evidence gaps that have limited clinicians’ and patients’ understanding and appreciation of the inherent risks of prescription opioid analgesics.”
Dr. Alexander, who has been an FDA advisory committee chairman and currently serves as a consultant to plaintiffs who are suing opioid manufacturers in federal multidistrict litigation, said the study “is a story about missed opportunities to improve the safety and to improve the regulatory review of these products.”
Coinvestigator Peter Lurie, MD, who was an official at the FDA from 2009 to 2017, said that “there’s not a lot of signs that things are changing” at the agency.
The study shows that the FDA has “accepted what the companies have been presenting,” said Dr. Lurie, who is president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
The FDA “absolutely has the authority” to require manufacturers to undertake more rigorous trials, but agency culture keeps it from making such demands, especially if doing so means a new applicant might have to conduct trials that weren’t previously required, Dr. Lurie said in an interview.
“FDA is pretty rigorous about trying to establish a level playing field. That’s a virtuous thing, but it becomes problematic when that prevents change,” said Dr. Lurie.
The most recent FDA guidance to manufacturers, issued in 2019, does not provide advice on criteria for endpoints, study duration, or which populations are most likely to benefit from opioid treatment. The agency also does not require drug manufacturers to formally collect data on safety, tolerance, overdose symptoms, or constipation.
The guidance does suggest that the agency would likely take into account public health considerations when evaluating opioids, such as the risk to the overall population for overdose and diversion.
‘Overwhelming evidence’
Dr. Kolodny said that, as far as he is aware, “this is the first scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal demonstrating clearly the problems with FDA’s opioid approval process.”
The article offers “overwhelming evidence that they are improperly approving the most dangerous medications – medications that killed more people than any other medication on the market,” added Dr. Kolodny, who is also president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing.
Asked to respond to the study findings, FDA spokesperson Charles Kohler said the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA orders stronger warnings on benzodiazepines
The Food and Drug Administration wants updated boxed warnings on benzodiazepines to reflect the “serious” risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with these medications.
“The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about these serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately,” the FDA said in a safety communication.
The FDA also wants revisions to the patient medication guides for benzodiazepines to help educate patients and caregivers about these risks.
“While benzodiazepines are important therapies for many Americans, they are also commonly abused and misused, often together with opioid pain relievers and other medicines, alcohol, and illicit drugs,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.
“We are taking measures and requiring new labeling information to help health care professionals and patients better understand that, while benzodiazepines have many treatment benefits, they also carry with them an increased risk of abuse, misuse, addiction, and dependence,” said Dr. Hahn.
Ninety-two million prescriptions in 2019
Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and other conditions, often for extended periods of time.
According to the FDA, in 2019, an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from U.S. outpatient pharmacies, most commonly alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.
Data from 2018 show that roughly 5.4 million people in the United States 12 years and older abused or misused benzodiazepines in the previous year.
Although the precise risk of benzodiazepine addiction remains unclear, population data “clearly indicate that both primary benzodiazepine use disorders and polysubstance addiction involving benzodiazepines do occur,” the FDA said.
Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015-2016 suggest that half million community-dwelling U.S. adults were estimated to have a benzodiazepine use disorder.
Jump in overdose deaths
Overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines jumped from 1,298 in 2010 to 11,537 in 2017 – an increase of more 780%. Most of these deaths involved benzodiazepines taken with prescription opioids.
the FDA said.
The agency urged particular caution when prescribing benzodiazepines with opioids and other central nervous system depressants, which has resulted in serious adverse events including severe respiratory depression and death.
The FDA also says patients and caregivers should be warned about the risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal with benzodiazepines and the associated signs and symptoms.
Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving benzodiazepines or other medicines to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration wants updated boxed warnings on benzodiazepines to reflect the “serious” risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with these medications.
“The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about these serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately,” the FDA said in a safety communication.
The FDA also wants revisions to the patient medication guides for benzodiazepines to help educate patients and caregivers about these risks.
“While benzodiazepines are important therapies for many Americans, they are also commonly abused and misused, often together with opioid pain relievers and other medicines, alcohol, and illicit drugs,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.
“We are taking measures and requiring new labeling information to help health care professionals and patients better understand that, while benzodiazepines have many treatment benefits, they also carry with them an increased risk of abuse, misuse, addiction, and dependence,” said Dr. Hahn.
Ninety-two million prescriptions in 2019
Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and other conditions, often for extended periods of time.
According to the FDA, in 2019, an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from U.S. outpatient pharmacies, most commonly alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.
Data from 2018 show that roughly 5.4 million people in the United States 12 years and older abused or misused benzodiazepines in the previous year.
Although the precise risk of benzodiazepine addiction remains unclear, population data “clearly indicate that both primary benzodiazepine use disorders and polysubstance addiction involving benzodiazepines do occur,” the FDA said.
Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015-2016 suggest that half million community-dwelling U.S. adults were estimated to have a benzodiazepine use disorder.
Jump in overdose deaths
Overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines jumped from 1,298 in 2010 to 11,537 in 2017 – an increase of more 780%. Most of these deaths involved benzodiazepines taken with prescription opioids.
the FDA said.
The agency urged particular caution when prescribing benzodiazepines with opioids and other central nervous system depressants, which has resulted in serious adverse events including severe respiratory depression and death.
The FDA also says patients and caregivers should be warned about the risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal with benzodiazepines and the associated signs and symptoms.
Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving benzodiazepines or other medicines to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration wants updated boxed warnings on benzodiazepines to reflect the “serious” risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with these medications.
“The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about these serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately,” the FDA said in a safety communication.
The FDA also wants revisions to the patient medication guides for benzodiazepines to help educate patients and caregivers about these risks.
“While benzodiazepines are important therapies for many Americans, they are also commonly abused and misused, often together with opioid pain relievers and other medicines, alcohol, and illicit drugs,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.
“We are taking measures and requiring new labeling information to help health care professionals and patients better understand that, while benzodiazepines have many treatment benefits, they also carry with them an increased risk of abuse, misuse, addiction, and dependence,” said Dr. Hahn.
Ninety-two million prescriptions in 2019
Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and other conditions, often for extended periods of time.
According to the FDA, in 2019, an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from U.S. outpatient pharmacies, most commonly alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.
Data from 2018 show that roughly 5.4 million people in the United States 12 years and older abused or misused benzodiazepines in the previous year.
Although the precise risk of benzodiazepine addiction remains unclear, population data “clearly indicate that both primary benzodiazepine use disorders and polysubstance addiction involving benzodiazepines do occur,” the FDA said.
Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015-2016 suggest that half million community-dwelling U.S. adults were estimated to have a benzodiazepine use disorder.
Jump in overdose deaths
Overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines jumped from 1,298 in 2010 to 11,537 in 2017 – an increase of more 780%. Most of these deaths involved benzodiazepines taken with prescription opioids.
the FDA said.
The agency urged particular caution when prescribing benzodiazepines with opioids and other central nervous system depressants, which has resulted in serious adverse events including severe respiratory depression and death.
The FDA also says patients and caregivers should be warned about the risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal with benzodiazepines and the associated signs and symptoms.
Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving benzodiazepines or other medicines to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC playbook prepares states for rollout of COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved
States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.
The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.
“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”
However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.
“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”
Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.
States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.
“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”
Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
Key issues identified
From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.
Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.
“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”
During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.
The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.
“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”
However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.
“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”
Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.
States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.
“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”
Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
Key issues identified
From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.
Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.
“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”
During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.
The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.
“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”
However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.
“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”
Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.
States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.
“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”
Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
Key issues identified
From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.
Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.
“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”
During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A young physician hopes to buck the status quo in Congress
On March 3 of this year, Bryant Cameron Webb, MD, JD, won two-thirds of the vote in Virginia’s Democratic primary race. In November, he’ll compete against Republican Bob Good to represent the state’s 5th Congressional District. If he succeeds, he will become the first Black physician ever elected to a seat in Congress.
The political and social unrest across the United States in recent months has resulted in millions of people becoming more proactive: from sports arenas to the halls of Congress, the rally cry of Black Lives Matter has echoed like never before after the killing of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of law enforcement. Dr. Webb, a practicing internist and professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, is among many physicians joining the cause. If elected, he hopes to bring a unique perspective to Washington and advocate for racial equity to help combat systemic racist policies that result in health disparities.
“For me as a professor at UVA in both public health sciences and in medicine, I have a lot to bring to this moment,” he commented, “real expertise on issues that are critical to the nation. Beyond my passion for health and wellness, I have a passion for justice.”
Dr. Webb also believes that serving in Congress is a way to help his patients. “I balance the work of direct patient care and patient advocacy in different spaces,” said the Spotsylvania County native. “Working in Congress is patient advocacy to me. It’s where I can be at my highest use to the people I take care of. It is different from direct patient care. I think this [unique] background that I have is needed in Congress.”
Dr. Webb has never held an elected office before, and he’s looking to get elected in a district that voted for President Trump in the past election. He knows challenges lie ahead.
A calling
The field of medicine called for Dr. Webb at an early age. He credits his family doctor, a Black man, for inspiring him. “With six kids in our family, we saw the doctor frequently. Dr. Yarboro was a young Black man just a few years out of residency. My mom had supreme confidence in him, and he made us feel at ease. So I wanted to be a doctor ever since I was 5 or 6 years old.”
Dr. Webb earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Virginia in 2005. He entered medical school at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., the following year. Following his third year of medical training, he heeded another calling: He took time off to attend law school. He enrolled in Loyola University of Chicago School of Law and earned his juris doctorate in 2012.
The move may seem an unexpected turn. But Dr. Webb feels his law degree enhances his work. “I think that it’s because I’m so steeped in the legal resources that folks need to navigate. I think I am able to provide better care. ... It’s a complement and helpful to me professionally, whether it’s fighting with an insurance company or with a prescription drug company.”
After law school, Dr. Webb finished his medical training at Wake Forest and moved north, where he completed an internal medicine residency at New York–Presbyterian Hospital. Then came yet another twist in Dr. Webb’s unconventional career path: in 2016, he was selected by President Obama as a White House fellow. He spent the next 2 years in Washington, where he worked on Mr. Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper Task Force, an initiative that addresses opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color.
Adeze Enekwechi, MD, president of Impaq and associate professor at the George Washington University, Washington, worked with Dr. Webb at the White House. “This is the place where he will have the most impact. We’ve been talking and writing about health equity ever since our time [there]. Not everybody can speak that language.
Why here? Why now?
Dr. Webb sees patients 2-3 days a week on alternating weeks and knows well the concerns of people who struggle with health. Now he’s ready to have those conversations on a larger platform. “As a Black physician, it’s about bringing that healer mindset to these problems. It’s not about just going there to brow beat people or add to that divisive nature in Congress. You acknowledge that the problems exist, and then bridge,” he said, hoping that bridging party divides can be a catalyst for healing.
Carla Boutin-Foster, MD, associate dean, office of diversity education and research at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, has mentored Dr. Webb since 2013. With his credentials, confidence, and persistence, she believes, he will be a great representative of the medical community in D.C. “You need someone who respects the Constitution. When policy needs to be developed, you need a healer, someone who understands the science of vaccines. This is something Cam has been groomed for. It’s something he has been living and practicing for years.”
The killing of George Floyd and the uprising that ensued has opened the dialogue about racial inequality in America. Health care is not immune to racial bias, and the effects are palatable. One survey conducted by the Larry A. Green Center, in collaboration with the Primary Care Collaborative and 3rd Conversation, found that more than 40% of clinicians say Mr. Floyd’s demise has become a topic of concern among patients of all demographics.
When it comes to racism, Dr. Webb understands that he plays a critical role in moving America forward. “We have so many voices that are powerful and important in the highest level of legislation. We have to use those voices to root out the injustices in our society, like in the Breonna Taylor case. We have to do so because that is how you achieve the American dream,” he said.
The social determinants of health – or “ZIP-code risk” – has been proven to influence health outcomes, yet few physicians screen for them during patient visits. For Dr. Webb, discussing things like housing security and interpersonal violence are critical to providing care.
One of Dr. Webb’s biggest supporters is his wife of 11 years, Leigh Ann Webb, MD, MBA, an emergency medicine physician and assistant professor of emergency medicine at UVA. “He is an effective leader and a consensus builder,” she said of her husband, with whom she has two children. “There has always been something very unique and special about him and the way he engages the world. We need more thoughtful, intelligent people like him to help our country move forward.”
In addition to being the director of health policy and equity at UVA this fall, Dr. Webb plans to teach a course at UVA centered around the social determinants of health called Place Matters. “The focus is on understanding how education and housing and food insecurity all come together to cause illness,” he said. “Health doesn’t happen in hospitals and clinics. It happens in the community.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
On March 3 of this year, Bryant Cameron Webb, MD, JD, won two-thirds of the vote in Virginia’s Democratic primary race. In November, he’ll compete against Republican Bob Good to represent the state’s 5th Congressional District. If he succeeds, he will become the first Black physician ever elected to a seat in Congress.
The political and social unrest across the United States in recent months has resulted in millions of people becoming more proactive: from sports arenas to the halls of Congress, the rally cry of Black Lives Matter has echoed like never before after the killing of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of law enforcement. Dr. Webb, a practicing internist and professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, is among many physicians joining the cause. If elected, he hopes to bring a unique perspective to Washington and advocate for racial equity to help combat systemic racist policies that result in health disparities.
“For me as a professor at UVA in both public health sciences and in medicine, I have a lot to bring to this moment,” he commented, “real expertise on issues that are critical to the nation. Beyond my passion for health and wellness, I have a passion for justice.”
Dr. Webb also believes that serving in Congress is a way to help his patients. “I balance the work of direct patient care and patient advocacy in different spaces,” said the Spotsylvania County native. “Working in Congress is patient advocacy to me. It’s where I can be at my highest use to the people I take care of. It is different from direct patient care. I think this [unique] background that I have is needed in Congress.”
Dr. Webb has never held an elected office before, and he’s looking to get elected in a district that voted for President Trump in the past election. He knows challenges lie ahead.
A calling
The field of medicine called for Dr. Webb at an early age. He credits his family doctor, a Black man, for inspiring him. “With six kids in our family, we saw the doctor frequently. Dr. Yarboro was a young Black man just a few years out of residency. My mom had supreme confidence in him, and he made us feel at ease. So I wanted to be a doctor ever since I was 5 or 6 years old.”
Dr. Webb earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Virginia in 2005. He entered medical school at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., the following year. Following his third year of medical training, he heeded another calling: He took time off to attend law school. He enrolled in Loyola University of Chicago School of Law and earned his juris doctorate in 2012.
The move may seem an unexpected turn. But Dr. Webb feels his law degree enhances his work. “I think that it’s because I’m so steeped in the legal resources that folks need to navigate. I think I am able to provide better care. ... It’s a complement and helpful to me professionally, whether it’s fighting with an insurance company or with a prescription drug company.”
After law school, Dr. Webb finished his medical training at Wake Forest and moved north, where he completed an internal medicine residency at New York–Presbyterian Hospital. Then came yet another twist in Dr. Webb’s unconventional career path: in 2016, he was selected by President Obama as a White House fellow. He spent the next 2 years in Washington, where he worked on Mr. Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper Task Force, an initiative that addresses opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color.
Adeze Enekwechi, MD, president of Impaq and associate professor at the George Washington University, Washington, worked with Dr. Webb at the White House. “This is the place where he will have the most impact. We’ve been talking and writing about health equity ever since our time [there]. Not everybody can speak that language.
Why here? Why now?
Dr. Webb sees patients 2-3 days a week on alternating weeks and knows well the concerns of people who struggle with health. Now he’s ready to have those conversations on a larger platform. “As a Black physician, it’s about bringing that healer mindset to these problems. It’s not about just going there to brow beat people or add to that divisive nature in Congress. You acknowledge that the problems exist, and then bridge,” he said, hoping that bridging party divides can be a catalyst for healing.
Carla Boutin-Foster, MD, associate dean, office of diversity education and research at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, has mentored Dr. Webb since 2013. With his credentials, confidence, and persistence, she believes, he will be a great representative of the medical community in D.C. “You need someone who respects the Constitution. When policy needs to be developed, you need a healer, someone who understands the science of vaccines. This is something Cam has been groomed for. It’s something he has been living and practicing for years.”
The killing of George Floyd and the uprising that ensued has opened the dialogue about racial inequality in America. Health care is not immune to racial bias, and the effects are palatable. One survey conducted by the Larry A. Green Center, in collaboration with the Primary Care Collaborative and 3rd Conversation, found that more than 40% of clinicians say Mr. Floyd’s demise has become a topic of concern among patients of all demographics.
When it comes to racism, Dr. Webb understands that he plays a critical role in moving America forward. “We have so many voices that are powerful and important in the highest level of legislation. We have to use those voices to root out the injustices in our society, like in the Breonna Taylor case. We have to do so because that is how you achieve the American dream,” he said.
The social determinants of health – or “ZIP-code risk” – has been proven to influence health outcomes, yet few physicians screen for them during patient visits. For Dr. Webb, discussing things like housing security and interpersonal violence are critical to providing care.
One of Dr. Webb’s biggest supporters is his wife of 11 years, Leigh Ann Webb, MD, MBA, an emergency medicine physician and assistant professor of emergency medicine at UVA. “He is an effective leader and a consensus builder,” she said of her husband, with whom she has two children. “There has always been something very unique and special about him and the way he engages the world. We need more thoughtful, intelligent people like him to help our country move forward.”
In addition to being the director of health policy and equity at UVA this fall, Dr. Webb plans to teach a course at UVA centered around the social determinants of health called Place Matters. “The focus is on understanding how education and housing and food insecurity all come together to cause illness,” he said. “Health doesn’t happen in hospitals and clinics. It happens in the community.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
On March 3 of this year, Bryant Cameron Webb, MD, JD, won two-thirds of the vote in Virginia’s Democratic primary race. In November, he’ll compete against Republican Bob Good to represent the state’s 5th Congressional District. If he succeeds, he will become the first Black physician ever elected to a seat in Congress.
The political and social unrest across the United States in recent months has resulted in millions of people becoming more proactive: from sports arenas to the halls of Congress, the rally cry of Black Lives Matter has echoed like never before after the killing of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of law enforcement. Dr. Webb, a practicing internist and professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, is among many physicians joining the cause. If elected, he hopes to bring a unique perspective to Washington and advocate for racial equity to help combat systemic racist policies that result in health disparities.
“For me as a professor at UVA in both public health sciences and in medicine, I have a lot to bring to this moment,” he commented, “real expertise on issues that are critical to the nation. Beyond my passion for health and wellness, I have a passion for justice.”
Dr. Webb also believes that serving in Congress is a way to help his patients. “I balance the work of direct patient care and patient advocacy in different spaces,” said the Spotsylvania County native. “Working in Congress is patient advocacy to me. It’s where I can be at my highest use to the people I take care of. It is different from direct patient care. I think this [unique] background that I have is needed in Congress.”
Dr. Webb has never held an elected office before, and he’s looking to get elected in a district that voted for President Trump in the past election. He knows challenges lie ahead.
A calling
The field of medicine called for Dr. Webb at an early age. He credits his family doctor, a Black man, for inspiring him. “With six kids in our family, we saw the doctor frequently. Dr. Yarboro was a young Black man just a few years out of residency. My mom had supreme confidence in him, and he made us feel at ease. So I wanted to be a doctor ever since I was 5 or 6 years old.”
Dr. Webb earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Virginia in 2005. He entered medical school at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., the following year. Following his third year of medical training, he heeded another calling: He took time off to attend law school. He enrolled in Loyola University of Chicago School of Law and earned his juris doctorate in 2012.
The move may seem an unexpected turn. But Dr. Webb feels his law degree enhances his work. “I think that it’s because I’m so steeped in the legal resources that folks need to navigate. I think I am able to provide better care. ... It’s a complement and helpful to me professionally, whether it’s fighting with an insurance company or with a prescription drug company.”
After law school, Dr. Webb finished his medical training at Wake Forest and moved north, where he completed an internal medicine residency at New York–Presbyterian Hospital. Then came yet another twist in Dr. Webb’s unconventional career path: in 2016, he was selected by President Obama as a White House fellow. He spent the next 2 years in Washington, where he worked on Mr. Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper Task Force, an initiative that addresses opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color.
Adeze Enekwechi, MD, president of Impaq and associate professor at the George Washington University, Washington, worked with Dr. Webb at the White House. “This is the place where he will have the most impact. We’ve been talking and writing about health equity ever since our time [there]. Not everybody can speak that language.
Why here? Why now?
Dr. Webb sees patients 2-3 days a week on alternating weeks and knows well the concerns of people who struggle with health. Now he’s ready to have those conversations on a larger platform. “As a Black physician, it’s about bringing that healer mindset to these problems. It’s not about just going there to brow beat people or add to that divisive nature in Congress. You acknowledge that the problems exist, and then bridge,” he said, hoping that bridging party divides can be a catalyst for healing.
Carla Boutin-Foster, MD, associate dean, office of diversity education and research at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, has mentored Dr. Webb since 2013. With his credentials, confidence, and persistence, she believes, he will be a great representative of the medical community in D.C. “You need someone who respects the Constitution. When policy needs to be developed, you need a healer, someone who understands the science of vaccines. This is something Cam has been groomed for. It’s something he has been living and practicing for years.”
The killing of George Floyd and the uprising that ensued has opened the dialogue about racial inequality in America. Health care is not immune to racial bias, and the effects are palatable. One survey conducted by the Larry A. Green Center, in collaboration with the Primary Care Collaborative and 3rd Conversation, found that more than 40% of clinicians say Mr. Floyd’s demise has become a topic of concern among patients of all demographics.
When it comes to racism, Dr. Webb understands that he plays a critical role in moving America forward. “We have so many voices that are powerful and important in the highest level of legislation. We have to use those voices to root out the injustices in our society, like in the Breonna Taylor case. We have to do so because that is how you achieve the American dream,” he said.
The social determinants of health – or “ZIP-code risk” – has been proven to influence health outcomes, yet few physicians screen for them during patient visits. For Dr. Webb, discussing things like housing security and interpersonal violence are critical to providing care.
One of Dr. Webb’s biggest supporters is his wife of 11 years, Leigh Ann Webb, MD, MBA, an emergency medicine physician and assistant professor of emergency medicine at UVA. “He is an effective leader and a consensus builder,” she said of her husband, with whom she has two children. “There has always been something very unique and special about him and the way he engages the world. We need more thoughtful, intelligent people like him to help our country move forward.”
In addition to being the director of health policy and equity at UVA this fall, Dr. Webb plans to teach a course at UVA centered around the social determinants of health called Place Matters. “The focus is on understanding how education and housing and food insecurity all come together to cause illness,” he said. “Health doesn’t happen in hospitals and clinics. It happens in the community.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC adds then retracts aerosols as main COVID-19 mode of transmission
The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.
CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.
However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”
Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”
Previous information
Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.
Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”
The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”
On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.
The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).
The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.
WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.
The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.
“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”
Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.
Update added air purifiers for prevention
The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.
The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”
Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.
CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.
However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”
Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”
Previous information
Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.
Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”
The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”
On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.
The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).
The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.
WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.
The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.
“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”
Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.
Update added air purifiers for prevention
The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.
The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”
Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.
CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.
However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”
Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”
Previous information
Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.
Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”
The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”
On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.
The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).
The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.
WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.
The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.
“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”
Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.
Update added air purifiers for prevention
The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.
The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”
Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.