User login
FDA approves anemia treatment for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia patients
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first treatment for anemia in adults with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia.
Luspatercept-aamt (Reblozyl) is an erythroid maturation agent that reduced the transfusion burden for patients with beta thalassemia in the BELIEVE trial of 336 patients. In total, 21% of patients who received luspatercept-aamt achieved at least a 33% reduction in red blood cell transfusions, compared with 4.5% of patients who received placebo, according to the FDA.
Common side effects associated with luspatercept-aamt were headache, bone pain, arthralgia, fatigue, cough, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and dizziness. Patients taking the agent should be monitored for thrombosis, the FDA advised.
Celgene, which makes luspatercept-aamt, said the agent would be available about 1 week following the FDA approval.
The FDA is also evaluating luspatercept-aamt as an anemia treatment in adults with very-low– to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who have ring sideroblasts and require red blood cell transfusions. The agency is expected to take action on that application in April 2020.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first treatment for anemia in adults with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia.
Luspatercept-aamt (Reblozyl) is an erythroid maturation agent that reduced the transfusion burden for patients with beta thalassemia in the BELIEVE trial of 336 patients. In total, 21% of patients who received luspatercept-aamt achieved at least a 33% reduction in red blood cell transfusions, compared with 4.5% of patients who received placebo, according to the FDA.
Common side effects associated with luspatercept-aamt were headache, bone pain, arthralgia, fatigue, cough, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and dizziness. Patients taking the agent should be monitored for thrombosis, the FDA advised.
Celgene, which makes luspatercept-aamt, said the agent would be available about 1 week following the FDA approval.
The FDA is also evaluating luspatercept-aamt as an anemia treatment in adults with very-low– to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who have ring sideroblasts and require red blood cell transfusions. The agency is expected to take action on that application in April 2020.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first treatment for anemia in adults with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia.
Luspatercept-aamt (Reblozyl) is an erythroid maturation agent that reduced the transfusion burden for patients with beta thalassemia in the BELIEVE trial of 336 patients. In total, 21% of patients who received luspatercept-aamt achieved at least a 33% reduction in red blood cell transfusions, compared with 4.5% of patients who received placebo, according to the FDA.
Common side effects associated with luspatercept-aamt were headache, bone pain, arthralgia, fatigue, cough, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and dizziness. Patients taking the agent should be monitored for thrombosis, the FDA advised.
Celgene, which makes luspatercept-aamt, said the agent would be available about 1 week following the FDA approval.
The FDA is also evaluating luspatercept-aamt as an anemia treatment in adults with very-low– to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who have ring sideroblasts and require red blood cell transfusions. The agency is expected to take action on that application in April 2020.
Lung cancer on the decline, but still higher among men than women
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
From 2007 to 2016, rates dropped among both sexes in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, according to Mary Elizabeth O’Neil, MPH, and colleagues. Their report is in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8;68[44];993-8). But lung cancer incidence in 2016 was still 40% higher among men than among women, said Ms. O’Neil, an epidemiologist at the CDC.
Rather than narrowly focusing on the “just stop smoking” message, “a comprehensive approach to lung cancer prevention and control includes such population-based strategies as screening for tobacco dependence, promoting tobacco cessation, implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws, testing all homes for radon and using proven methods to lower high radon levels, and reducing exposure to lung carcinogens such as asbestos.” According to the authors of the report, “increasing the implementation of these strategies, particularly among persons living in nonmetropolitan counties, might help to reduce disparities in the decline of lung cancer incidence.”
The recommendation is based on data extracted from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Database for 2007-2016. The data cover 97% of the population.
In nonmetropolitan counties in 2007, incidence rates among men were 60% higher (99 vs. 61 per 100,000). Although rates decreased in both sexes, they were still elevated compared with women in 2016 (82 vs. 58 per 100,000; 40%).
Over the 10-year period, the rate declined more among men than among women (–2.9% vs. –1.5%) in metropolitan areas. The pattern repeated in nonmetropolitan areas (–2.1% and –0.5%, respectively).
There were different declines in different age groups by region, the authors noted.
Men aged 45-54 years in metropolitan areas experienced the largest decline (–5.2%).
Among women, the largest decline occurred in metropolitan areas among those aged 35-44 years (–5%). In nonmetropolitan areas, women in this age group experienced a 3.6% decline and women aged 65-74 years, a 1.3% decline.
Among persons aged 35-54 years, incidence rates in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties did not differ by sex but were higher in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties.
There were also overall changes in smoking patterns. According to 2017 data from the National Health Interview Survey data, more adults in metropolitan areas than nonmetropolitan areas smoked (23% versus 13%) but fewer had tried to quit (50% vs. 56%). Successful quitting attempts also were lower (5% vs. 9%).
Although it is a large contributing factor, smoking is not the only risk factor for lung cancer, the authors wrote. About 10%-15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked tobacco. Nonsmoked tobacco products and second-hand exposure to cigarette smoke are risks, as are indoor radon and asbestos exposure.
Clinicians can help improve this scenario by screening at each office visit, the authors said. The recommendation is based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidance.
“Lung cancer screening is recommended for adults at high risk for developing lung cancer because of their age and cigarette smoking history. Screening efforts can identify lung cancer in its early stages and provide an important opportunity to promote tobacco smoking cessation.”
However, lack of insurance among residents of nonmetropolitan areas may hamper access to these services, they said. In those regions, “a higher percentage of residents aged less than 65 years report being uninsured compared with those in metropolitan areas.”
SOURCE: O’Neil ME et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8: 68(44);993-8.
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
From 2007 to 2016, rates dropped among both sexes in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, according to Mary Elizabeth O’Neil, MPH, and colleagues. Their report is in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8;68[44];993-8). But lung cancer incidence in 2016 was still 40% higher among men than among women, said Ms. O’Neil, an epidemiologist at the CDC.
Rather than narrowly focusing on the “just stop smoking” message, “a comprehensive approach to lung cancer prevention and control includes such population-based strategies as screening for tobacco dependence, promoting tobacco cessation, implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws, testing all homes for radon and using proven methods to lower high radon levels, and reducing exposure to lung carcinogens such as asbestos.” According to the authors of the report, “increasing the implementation of these strategies, particularly among persons living in nonmetropolitan counties, might help to reduce disparities in the decline of lung cancer incidence.”
The recommendation is based on data extracted from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Database for 2007-2016. The data cover 97% of the population.
In nonmetropolitan counties in 2007, incidence rates among men were 60% higher (99 vs. 61 per 100,000). Although rates decreased in both sexes, they were still elevated compared with women in 2016 (82 vs. 58 per 100,000; 40%).
Over the 10-year period, the rate declined more among men than among women (–2.9% vs. –1.5%) in metropolitan areas. The pattern repeated in nonmetropolitan areas (–2.1% and –0.5%, respectively).
There were different declines in different age groups by region, the authors noted.
Men aged 45-54 years in metropolitan areas experienced the largest decline (–5.2%).
Among women, the largest decline occurred in metropolitan areas among those aged 35-44 years (–5%). In nonmetropolitan areas, women in this age group experienced a 3.6% decline and women aged 65-74 years, a 1.3% decline.
Among persons aged 35-54 years, incidence rates in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties did not differ by sex but were higher in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties.
There were also overall changes in smoking patterns. According to 2017 data from the National Health Interview Survey data, more adults in metropolitan areas than nonmetropolitan areas smoked (23% versus 13%) but fewer had tried to quit (50% vs. 56%). Successful quitting attempts also were lower (5% vs. 9%).
Although it is a large contributing factor, smoking is not the only risk factor for lung cancer, the authors wrote. About 10%-15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked tobacco. Nonsmoked tobacco products and second-hand exposure to cigarette smoke are risks, as are indoor radon and asbestos exposure.
Clinicians can help improve this scenario by screening at each office visit, the authors said. The recommendation is based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidance.
“Lung cancer screening is recommended for adults at high risk for developing lung cancer because of their age and cigarette smoking history. Screening efforts can identify lung cancer in its early stages and provide an important opportunity to promote tobacco smoking cessation.”
However, lack of insurance among residents of nonmetropolitan areas may hamper access to these services, they said. In those regions, “a higher percentage of residents aged less than 65 years report being uninsured compared with those in metropolitan areas.”
SOURCE: O’Neil ME et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8: 68(44);993-8.
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
From 2007 to 2016, rates dropped among both sexes in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, according to Mary Elizabeth O’Neil, MPH, and colleagues. Their report is in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8;68[44];993-8). But lung cancer incidence in 2016 was still 40% higher among men than among women, said Ms. O’Neil, an epidemiologist at the CDC.
Rather than narrowly focusing on the “just stop smoking” message, “a comprehensive approach to lung cancer prevention and control includes such population-based strategies as screening for tobacco dependence, promoting tobacco cessation, implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws, testing all homes for radon and using proven methods to lower high radon levels, and reducing exposure to lung carcinogens such as asbestos.” According to the authors of the report, “increasing the implementation of these strategies, particularly among persons living in nonmetropolitan counties, might help to reduce disparities in the decline of lung cancer incidence.”
The recommendation is based on data extracted from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Database for 2007-2016. The data cover 97% of the population.
In nonmetropolitan counties in 2007, incidence rates among men were 60% higher (99 vs. 61 per 100,000). Although rates decreased in both sexes, they were still elevated compared with women in 2016 (82 vs. 58 per 100,000; 40%).
Over the 10-year period, the rate declined more among men than among women (–2.9% vs. –1.5%) in metropolitan areas. The pattern repeated in nonmetropolitan areas (–2.1% and –0.5%, respectively).
There were different declines in different age groups by region, the authors noted.
Men aged 45-54 years in metropolitan areas experienced the largest decline (–5.2%).
Among women, the largest decline occurred in metropolitan areas among those aged 35-44 years (–5%). In nonmetropolitan areas, women in this age group experienced a 3.6% decline and women aged 65-74 years, a 1.3% decline.
Among persons aged 35-54 years, incidence rates in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties did not differ by sex but were higher in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties.
There were also overall changes in smoking patterns. According to 2017 data from the National Health Interview Survey data, more adults in metropolitan areas than nonmetropolitan areas smoked (23% versus 13%) but fewer had tried to quit (50% vs. 56%). Successful quitting attempts also were lower (5% vs. 9%).
Although it is a large contributing factor, smoking is not the only risk factor for lung cancer, the authors wrote. About 10%-15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked tobacco. Nonsmoked tobacco products and second-hand exposure to cigarette smoke are risks, as are indoor radon and asbestos exposure.
Clinicians can help improve this scenario by screening at each office visit, the authors said. The recommendation is based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidance.
“Lung cancer screening is recommended for adults at high risk for developing lung cancer because of their age and cigarette smoking history. Screening efforts can identify lung cancer in its early stages and provide an important opportunity to promote tobacco smoking cessation.”
However, lack of insurance among residents of nonmetropolitan areas may hamper access to these services, they said. In those regions, “a higher percentage of residents aged less than 65 years report being uninsured compared with those in metropolitan areas.”
SOURCE: O’Neil ME et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8: 68(44);993-8.
FROM MMWR
U.S. deaths from preventable causes occur more often in rural areas
compared with the most urban counties during 2010-2017, according to study published in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
These leading causes of death comprised heart disease, cancer, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke and accounted for approximately 1.7 million deaths or 61% of all deaths in 2017.
The study presents estimates, percentages, and annual percent changes for potentially excess deaths by urban-rural classification from heart disease, cancer, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke. Urban-rural categories were identified using the National Center for Health Statistics 2013 urban-rural classification scheme for counties.
The report’s main findings include the following statistics:
- In 2010, 28.7% of deaths from cancer in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 17.9% in the most urban counties. By 2017, 21.7% of cancer deaths in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 3.2% in the most urban counties.
- In 2010, 45.1% of deaths from heart disease in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 33.5% in the most urban counties. By 2017, 44.9% of deaths from heart disease in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 28.0% in the most urban counties.
- In 2010, 60.9% of deaths from unintentional injury in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 25.4% in the most urban counties. By 2017, 64.1% of deaths from unintentional injury in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 47.8% in the most urban counties.
- In 2010, 54.3% of deaths from chronic lower respiratory disease (such as COPD) in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 23.4% in the most urban counties. By 2017, 57.1% of deaths from chronic lower respiratory disease in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 13% in the most urban counties.
- In 2010, 41.6% of deaths from stroke in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 31.7% in most urban areas. By 2017, 37.8% of deaths from stroke in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 27.4% most urban counties.
“This report demonstrates the value of analyzing potentially excess deaths according to the six 2013 [National Center for Health Statistics] urban-rural county classifications. Reporting trends in potentially excess deaths over an 8-year period highlights differences over time, independent of traditional underlying structural, environmental, and genetic factors,” wrote Macarena C. Garcia, DrPH, and coauthors.
“Because of increasing percentages of potentially excess deaths in recent years for certain causes of death and certain demographic groups, these data can be used, with traditional rate comparisons, by public health practitioners who are involved in planning interventions. Comparing the findings in this report with data from tools such as the CDC Interactive Atlas of Heart Disease and Stroke might help identify the social determinants, health care infrastructures, and public policies that could increase or decrease numbers of deaths in specific nonmetropolitan areas,” they added.
The study authors did not disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Garcia MC et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8: 68(10);1-11.
compared with the most urban counties during 2010-2017, according to study published in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
These leading causes of death comprised heart disease, cancer, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke and accounted for approximately 1.7 million deaths or 61% of all deaths in 2017.
The study presents estimates, percentages, and annual percent changes for potentially excess deaths by urban-rural classification from heart disease, cancer, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke. Urban-rural categories were identified using the National Center for Health Statistics 2013 urban-rural classification scheme for counties.
The report’s main findings include the following statistics:
- In 2010, 28.7% of deaths from cancer in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 17.9% in the most urban counties. By 2017, 21.7% of cancer deaths in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 3.2% in the most urban counties.
- In 2010, 45.1% of deaths from heart disease in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 33.5% in the most urban counties. By 2017, 44.9% of deaths from heart disease in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 28.0% in the most urban counties.
- In 2010, 60.9% of deaths from unintentional injury in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 25.4% in the most urban counties. By 2017, 64.1% of deaths from unintentional injury in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 47.8% in the most urban counties.
- In 2010, 54.3% of deaths from chronic lower respiratory disease (such as COPD) in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 23.4% in the most urban counties. By 2017, 57.1% of deaths from chronic lower respiratory disease in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 13% in the most urban counties.
- In 2010, 41.6% of deaths from stroke in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 31.7% in most urban areas. By 2017, 37.8% of deaths from stroke in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 27.4% most urban counties.
“This report demonstrates the value of analyzing potentially excess deaths according to the six 2013 [National Center for Health Statistics] urban-rural county classifications. Reporting trends in potentially excess deaths over an 8-year period highlights differences over time, independent of traditional underlying structural, environmental, and genetic factors,” wrote Macarena C. Garcia, DrPH, and coauthors.
“Because of increasing percentages of potentially excess deaths in recent years for certain causes of death and certain demographic groups, these data can be used, with traditional rate comparisons, by public health practitioners who are involved in planning interventions. Comparing the findings in this report with data from tools such as the CDC Interactive Atlas of Heart Disease and Stroke might help identify the social determinants, health care infrastructures, and public policies that could increase or decrease numbers of deaths in specific nonmetropolitan areas,” they added.
The study authors did not disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Garcia MC et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8: 68(10);1-11.
compared with the most urban counties during 2010-2017, according to study published in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
These leading causes of death comprised heart disease, cancer, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke and accounted for approximately 1.7 million deaths or 61% of all deaths in 2017.
The study presents estimates, percentages, and annual percent changes for potentially excess deaths by urban-rural classification from heart disease, cancer, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke. Urban-rural categories were identified using the National Center for Health Statistics 2013 urban-rural classification scheme for counties.
The report’s main findings include the following statistics:
- In 2010, 28.7% of deaths from cancer in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 17.9% in the most urban counties. By 2017, 21.7% of cancer deaths in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 3.2% in the most urban counties.
- In 2010, 45.1% of deaths from heart disease in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 33.5% in the most urban counties. By 2017, 44.9% of deaths from heart disease in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 28.0% in the most urban counties.
- In 2010, 60.9% of deaths from unintentional injury in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 25.4% in the most urban counties. By 2017, 64.1% of deaths from unintentional injury in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 47.8% in the most urban counties.
- In 2010, 54.3% of deaths from chronic lower respiratory disease (such as COPD) in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 23.4% in the most urban counties. By 2017, 57.1% of deaths from chronic lower respiratory disease in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 13% in the most urban counties.
- In 2010, 41.6% of deaths from stroke in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 31.7% in most urban areas. By 2017, 37.8% of deaths from stroke in the most rural counties were potentially preventable, compared with 27.4% most urban counties.
“This report demonstrates the value of analyzing potentially excess deaths according to the six 2013 [National Center for Health Statistics] urban-rural county classifications. Reporting trends in potentially excess deaths over an 8-year period highlights differences over time, independent of traditional underlying structural, environmental, and genetic factors,” wrote Macarena C. Garcia, DrPH, and coauthors.
“Because of increasing percentages of potentially excess deaths in recent years for certain causes of death and certain demographic groups, these data can be used, with traditional rate comparisons, by public health practitioners who are involved in planning interventions. Comparing the findings in this report with data from tools such as the CDC Interactive Atlas of Heart Disease and Stroke might help identify the social determinants, health care infrastructures, and public policies that could increase or decrease numbers of deaths in specific nonmetropolitan areas,” they added.
The study authors did not disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Garcia MC et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8: 68(10);1-11.
Adverse childhood experiences increase the risk of poor long-term health
and societal outcomes, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Our analysis suggests that preventing or reducing these adverse childhood experiences [ACEs] could potentially reduce the annual number of coronary heart disease cases by up to 13%,” said Ann Schuchat, MD, the CDC’s principal deputy director. “If we apply this analysis to other national disease estimates, preventing ACEs could prevent 1.9 million cases of heart disease, 2.5 million cases of overweight or obesity, 21 million cases of depression, and 1.5 million high-school incompletions.”
The analysis, conducted by Melissa T. Merrick, PhD, and colleagues at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta, is based on data acquired from more than 144,000 adults in 27 states.
It’s the first time the CDC has waded into this territory, Dr. Schuchat said during a press briefing. But a hard look into the data is long overdue. ACEs have been linked to at least 5 of the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States: heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, diabetes, and suicide.
“It’s been proven that exposure to abuse, violence, and familial substance abuse and mental health problems can lead to health and social problems during the entire lifespan. Multiple exposures can produce toxic stress and chronic activation of the stress response system,” Dr. Schuchat continued. “Our report found that more than half of adults have experienced at least one type of ACE, and one in six adults has been exposed to four or more. The effects add up – the more types of ACE encountered, the higher the risk for negative outcomes that limit their entire lives.”
Dr. Merrick, a behavioral scientist with the CDC, and her team reviewed data collected from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults administered every year within each state. During the 2015-2017 data collection years, 27 states included questions about ACEs. The experiences included childhood exposure to three types of abuse (physical, emotional, and sexual) and five types of household challenges (household member substance misuse, incarceration, mental illness, parental divorce, or witnessing intimate partner violence) before age 18 years.
In all, 61% of respondents reported experiencing at least one of the events; 16% reported experiencing four or more. Women, Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and blacks were more likely to have these experiences than were men and whites.
A multivariate regression analysis found that adults with the highest level of ACE exposure had significantly elevated risks of several chronic health issues and social challenges, compared with nonexposed subjects. These included increased risk of overweight or obesity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 2.8), depression (aOR 5.3), smoking (aOR 3.1), heavy drinking (aOR 1.8), and underemployment (aOR 1.7), compared with adults reporting no ACEs.
Reducing ACE exposures could in turn reduce many of these challenges, especially among people with the highest number of exposures. Among this group, preventing all ACE exposure could cut overweight and obesity by up to 1.7%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by up to 27%, depression by up to 44%, smoking by up to 33%, and heavy drinking by 24%. Preventing ACE exposure also could reduce lack of health insurance by 4% and unemployment by 15%, the researchers said.
The good news, Dr. Merrick and associates said, is that ACE exposure can be at least partially offset by positive interactions with adults and in social and community settings.
“Prevention of adverse childhood experiences is possible with state and community efforts to build resilient families and communities, provide parental support to develop positive parenting and coping skills, and increase access to, and use of, comprehensive health services,” they said.
The CDC recommends a comprehensive approach to preventing ACEs and mitigating their impact. The data-driven suggestions include:
- Promoting family economic health, including tax credits and family-focused work policy.
- Endorsing programs to mitigate violence and adversity, including public education programs that support parents.
- Promoting early childhood development with high-quality child care and preschool programs.
- Recommending stress reduction skills for parents and young people, and programs that teach safe dating and healthy relationship skills.
- Supporting youth development by connecting youth to adult mentors and after-school programs.
- Encouraging clinicians to identify and address ACE exposure with screening, referral, and support.
“This is important for reducing the consequences of adverse childhood experiences and for helping to protect the next generation of children from exposure to violence and other adverse experiences, such as witnessing substance misuse in their household,” Dr. Merrick and associates said.
The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Merrick M et al. MMWR. 2019 Nov 5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6844e1.
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) trigger pathophysiologic responses that exert real physical and psychological harm. Thus, clinicians can and should address them as part of good medical care, Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, Melissa T. Merrick, PhD, and Debra E. Houry, MD, MPH, said in a JAMA commentary.
“A large and growing body of research indicates that the underlying mechanism by which ACEs are associated with health outcomes is through the development of toxic stress, a chronic activation of the stress response system. Toxic stress results in dysregulation of the limbic-hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, elevating levels of catecholamines (“fight or flight” response), cortisol, and proinflammatory cytokines, leading to cascading effects on the nervous, endocrine, and immune systems. These changes can affect attention and other executive functioning, impulsive behavior, brain reward systems, decision-making, and response to stress throughout the life span,” they said.
While societies and communities at large must work together to reduce ACE exposure, clinicians also have a role. Research indicates that many don’t routinely ask questions about these issues, in a large part because they lack training in how and when to screen.
“Incorporating components of primary ACEs prevention into everyday clinical practice may be achievable through talking with parents and caregivers about creating safe, stable, nurturing environments and protective relationships, and reinforcing positive parenting techniques and coping skills at routine clinical visits,” the editorialists said. “In addition, clinicians can refer parents to parenting skills classes or refer higher-risk parents to home visitation programs such as Healthy Families America and Nurse-Family Partnership. Home visitation programs have demonstrated significant reductions in rates of child abuse and neglect and have improved substance use, violence, and parenting outcomes.”
Clinicians also may have a role to play in mitigating the harms of ACEs, by incorporating trauma-informed care and services into their daily practice.
“Important elements of trauma-informed care include understanding how trauma affects health, routinely screening for ACEs and trauma, using culturally responsive assessments, promoting resilience and protective factors, addressing trauma-related somatic and mental health issues, and ensuring appropriate linkage to services and supports for identified issues,” the editorialists concluded.
Dr. Jones is associate director in the Office of Strategy and Innovation in the CDC Injury Center. Dr. Merrick is president and CEO of Prevent Childhood Abuse America, Chicago. Dr. Houry is director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta. They discussed the MMWR analysis in a commentary (JAMA. 2019 Nov 5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.18499). They had no relevant financial disclosures.
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) trigger pathophysiologic responses that exert real physical and psychological harm. Thus, clinicians can and should address them as part of good medical care, Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, Melissa T. Merrick, PhD, and Debra E. Houry, MD, MPH, said in a JAMA commentary.
“A large and growing body of research indicates that the underlying mechanism by which ACEs are associated with health outcomes is through the development of toxic stress, a chronic activation of the stress response system. Toxic stress results in dysregulation of the limbic-hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, elevating levels of catecholamines (“fight or flight” response), cortisol, and proinflammatory cytokines, leading to cascading effects on the nervous, endocrine, and immune systems. These changes can affect attention and other executive functioning, impulsive behavior, brain reward systems, decision-making, and response to stress throughout the life span,” they said.
While societies and communities at large must work together to reduce ACE exposure, clinicians also have a role. Research indicates that many don’t routinely ask questions about these issues, in a large part because they lack training in how and when to screen.
“Incorporating components of primary ACEs prevention into everyday clinical practice may be achievable through talking with parents and caregivers about creating safe, stable, nurturing environments and protective relationships, and reinforcing positive parenting techniques and coping skills at routine clinical visits,” the editorialists said. “In addition, clinicians can refer parents to parenting skills classes or refer higher-risk parents to home visitation programs such as Healthy Families America and Nurse-Family Partnership. Home visitation programs have demonstrated significant reductions in rates of child abuse and neglect and have improved substance use, violence, and parenting outcomes.”
Clinicians also may have a role to play in mitigating the harms of ACEs, by incorporating trauma-informed care and services into their daily practice.
“Important elements of trauma-informed care include understanding how trauma affects health, routinely screening for ACEs and trauma, using culturally responsive assessments, promoting resilience and protective factors, addressing trauma-related somatic and mental health issues, and ensuring appropriate linkage to services and supports for identified issues,” the editorialists concluded.
Dr. Jones is associate director in the Office of Strategy and Innovation in the CDC Injury Center. Dr. Merrick is president and CEO of Prevent Childhood Abuse America, Chicago. Dr. Houry is director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta. They discussed the MMWR analysis in a commentary (JAMA. 2019 Nov 5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.18499). They had no relevant financial disclosures.
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) trigger pathophysiologic responses that exert real physical and psychological harm. Thus, clinicians can and should address them as part of good medical care, Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, Melissa T. Merrick, PhD, and Debra E. Houry, MD, MPH, said in a JAMA commentary.
“A large and growing body of research indicates that the underlying mechanism by which ACEs are associated with health outcomes is through the development of toxic stress, a chronic activation of the stress response system. Toxic stress results in dysregulation of the limbic-hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, elevating levels of catecholamines (“fight or flight” response), cortisol, and proinflammatory cytokines, leading to cascading effects on the nervous, endocrine, and immune systems. These changes can affect attention and other executive functioning, impulsive behavior, brain reward systems, decision-making, and response to stress throughout the life span,” they said.
While societies and communities at large must work together to reduce ACE exposure, clinicians also have a role. Research indicates that many don’t routinely ask questions about these issues, in a large part because they lack training in how and when to screen.
“Incorporating components of primary ACEs prevention into everyday clinical practice may be achievable through talking with parents and caregivers about creating safe, stable, nurturing environments and protective relationships, and reinforcing positive parenting techniques and coping skills at routine clinical visits,” the editorialists said. “In addition, clinicians can refer parents to parenting skills classes or refer higher-risk parents to home visitation programs such as Healthy Families America and Nurse-Family Partnership. Home visitation programs have demonstrated significant reductions in rates of child abuse and neglect and have improved substance use, violence, and parenting outcomes.”
Clinicians also may have a role to play in mitigating the harms of ACEs, by incorporating trauma-informed care and services into their daily practice.
“Important elements of trauma-informed care include understanding how trauma affects health, routinely screening for ACEs and trauma, using culturally responsive assessments, promoting resilience and protective factors, addressing trauma-related somatic and mental health issues, and ensuring appropriate linkage to services and supports for identified issues,” the editorialists concluded.
Dr. Jones is associate director in the Office of Strategy and Innovation in the CDC Injury Center. Dr. Merrick is president and CEO of Prevent Childhood Abuse America, Chicago. Dr. Houry is director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta. They discussed the MMWR analysis in a commentary (JAMA. 2019 Nov 5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.18499). They had no relevant financial disclosures.
and societal outcomes, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Our analysis suggests that preventing or reducing these adverse childhood experiences [ACEs] could potentially reduce the annual number of coronary heart disease cases by up to 13%,” said Ann Schuchat, MD, the CDC’s principal deputy director. “If we apply this analysis to other national disease estimates, preventing ACEs could prevent 1.9 million cases of heart disease, 2.5 million cases of overweight or obesity, 21 million cases of depression, and 1.5 million high-school incompletions.”
The analysis, conducted by Melissa T. Merrick, PhD, and colleagues at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta, is based on data acquired from more than 144,000 adults in 27 states.
It’s the first time the CDC has waded into this territory, Dr. Schuchat said during a press briefing. But a hard look into the data is long overdue. ACEs have been linked to at least 5 of the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States: heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, diabetes, and suicide.
“It’s been proven that exposure to abuse, violence, and familial substance abuse and mental health problems can lead to health and social problems during the entire lifespan. Multiple exposures can produce toxic stress and chronic activation of the stress response system,” Dr. Schuchat continued. “Our report found that more than half of adults have experienced at least one type of ACE, and one in six adults has been exposed to four or more. The effects add up – the more types of ACE encountered, the higher the risk for negative outcomes that limit their entire lives.”
Dr. Merrick, a behavioral scientist with the CDC, and her team reviewed data collected from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults administered every year within each state. During the 2015-2017 data collection years, 27 states included questions about ACEs. The experiences included childhood exposure to three types of abuse (physical, emotional, and sexual) and five types of household challenges (household member substance misuse, incarceration, mental illness, parental divorce, or witnessing intimate partner violence) before age 18 years.
In all, 61% of respondents reported experiencing at least one of the events; 16% reported experiencing four or more. Women, Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and blacks were more likely to have these experiences than were men and whites.
A multivariate regression analysis found that adults with the highest level of ACE exposure had significantly elevated risks of several chronic health issues and social challenges, compared with nonexposed subjects. These included increased risk of overweight or obesity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 2.8), depression (aOR 5.3), smoking (aOR 3.1), heavy drinking (aOR 1.8), and underemployment (aOR 1.7), compared with adults reporting no ACEs.
Reducing ACE exposures could in turn reduce many of these challenges, especially among people with the highest number of exposures. Among this group, preventing all ACE exposure could cut overweight and obesity by up to 1.7%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by up to 27%, depression by up to 44%, smoking by up to 33%, and heavy drinking by 24%. Preventing ACE exposure also could reduce lack of health insurance by 4% and unemployment by 15%, the researchers said.
The good news, Dr. Merrick and associates said, is that ACE exposure can be at least partially offset by positive interactions with adults and in social and community settings.
“Prevention of adverse childhood experiences is possible with state and community efforts to build resilient families and communities, provide parental support to develop positive parenting and coping skills, and increase access to, and use of, comprehensive health services,” they said.
The CDC recommends a comprehensive approach to preventing ACEs and mitigating their impact. The data-driven suggestions include:
- Promoting family economic health, including tax credits and family-focused work policy.
- Endorsing programs to mitigate violence and adversity, including public education programs that support parents.
- Promoting early childhood development with high-quality child care and preschool programs.
- Recommending stress reduction skills for parents and young people, and programs that teach safe dating and healthy relationship skills.
- Supporting youth development by connecting youth to adult mentors and after-school programs.
- Encouraging clinicians to identify and address ACE exposure with screening, referral, and support.
“This is important for reducing the consequences of adverse childhood experiences and for helping to protect the next generation of children from exposure to violence and other adverse experiences, such as witnessing substance misuse in their household,” Dr. Merrick and associates said.
The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Merrick M et al. MMWR. 2019 Nov 5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6844e1.
and societal outcomes, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Our analysis suggests that preventing or reducing these adverse childhood experiences [ACEs] could potentially reduce the annual number of coronary heart disease cases by up to 13%,” said Ann Schuchat, MD, the CDC’s principal deputy director. “If we apply this analysis to other national disease estimates, preventing ACEs could prevent 1.9 million cases of heart disease, 2.5 million cases of overweight or obesity, 21 million cases of depression, and 1.5 million high-school incompletions.”
The analysis, conducted by Melissa T. Merrick, PhD, and colleagues at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta, is based on data acquired from more than 144,000 adults in 27 states.
It’s the first time the CDC has waded into this territory, Dr. Schuchat said during a press briefing. But a hard look into the data is long overdue. ACEs have been linked to at least 5 of the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States: heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, diabetes, and suicide.
“It’s been proven that exposure to abuse, violence, and familial substance abuse and mental health problems can lead to health and social problems during the entire lifespan. Multiple exposures can produce toxic stress and chronic activation of the stress response system,” Dr. Schuchat continued. “Our report found that more than half of adults have experienced at least one type of ACE, and one in six adults has been exposed to four or more. The effects add up – the more types of ACE encountered, the higher the risk for negative outcomes that limit their entire lives.”
Dr. Merrick, a behavioral scientist with the CDC, and her team reviewed data collected from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults administered every year within each state. During the 2015-2017 data collection years, 27 states included questions about ACEs. The experiences included childhood exposure to three types of abuse (physical, emotional, and sexual) and five types of household challenges (household member substance misuse, incarceration, mental illness, parental divorce, or witnessing intimate partner violence) before age 18 years.
In all, 61% of respondents reported experiencing at least one of the events; 16% reported experiencing four or more. Women, Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and blacks were more likely to have these experiences than were men and whites.
A multivariate regression analysis found that adults with the highest level of ACE exposure had significantly elevated risks of several chronic health issues and social challenges, compared with nonexposed subjects. These included increased risk of overweight or obesity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 2.8), depression (aOR 5.3), smoking (aOR 3.1), heavy drinking (aOR 1.8), and underemployment (aOR 1.7), compared with adults reporting no ACEs.
Reducing ACE exposures could in turn reduce many of these challenges, especially among people with the highest number of exposures. Among this group, preventing all ACE exposure could cut overweight and obesity by up to 1.7%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by up to 27%, depression by up to 44%, smoking by up to 33%, and heavy drinking by 24%. Preventing ACE exposure also could reduce lack of health insurance by 4% and unemployment by 15%, the researchers said.
The good news, Dr. Merrick and associates said, is that ACE exposure can be at least partially offset by positive interactions with adults and in social and community settings.
“Prevention of adverse childhood experiences is possible with state and community efforts to build resilient families and communities, provide parental support to develop positive parenting and coping skills, and increase access to, and use of, comprehensive health services,” they said.
The CDC recommends a comprehensive approach to preventing ACEs and mitigating their impact. The data-driven suggestions include:
- Promoting family economic health, including tax credits and family-focused work policy.
- Endorsing programs to mitigate violence and adversity, including public education programs that support parents.
- Promoting early childhood development with high-quality child care and preschool programs.
- Recommending stress reduction skills for parents and young people, and programs that teach safe dating and healthy relationship skills.
- Supporting youth development by connecting youth to adult mentors and after-school programs.
- Encouraging clinicians to identify and address ACE exposure with screening, referral, and support.
“This is important for reducing the consequences of adverse childhood experiences and for helping to protect the next generation of children from exposure to violence and other adverse experiences, such as witnessing substance misuse in their household,” Dr. Merrick and associates said.
The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Merrick M et al. MMWR. 2019 Nov 5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6844e1.
FROM MMWR
Clinicians ask FDA for continued ‘discretion’ to do fecal transplants
Attendees at a public meeting on Nov. 4 gave the US Food and Drug Administration conflicting views on whether the agency should continue to allow a relatively loose regulatory environment for fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) – debating the limits of “enforcement discretion” the FDA now has in place.
The question is especially relevant as use of the procedure is growing, while safety data are not being rigorously collected in all cases. The death of an immunocompromised FMT patient earlier in 2018 from an invasive bacterial infection caused by drug-resistant Escherichia coli, as reported by Medscape Medical News, is seen by some as an example of the consequences of a loose policy.
Still, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) presented new, unpublished follow-up data at the meeting that showed that the majority of FMT patients in a national registry had no adverse events.
Some companies developing FMT-based products argued at the meeting that the agency should impose stricter requirements, while stool banks and clinicians offering the therapy outside of clinical trials said that the current policy – in place since 2013 – in which the FDA has exercised “enforcement discretion,” should be allowed to continue.
“Enforcement discretion has been successful in enabling and overcoming key barriers to access to treatment,” said Majdi Osman, MD, clinical program director at OpenBiome, a nonprofit stool bank based in Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Osman said that 98% of the U.S. population now lives within a 2-hour drive of an FMT provider.
Amanda Kabage, a researcher and donor program coordinator for the Microbiota Therapeutics program at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and herself a former recipient of FMT, said she was in favor of continuing the FDA policy.
“If enforcement discretion were to go away, patients far sicker than I was will not have access. They’ll get sicker and they will die,” Ms. Kabage said.
But, she added, the FDA had missed an opportunity by not insisting on collecting outcomes and safety data. Minnesota has established a patient registry to do just that, and physicians cannot administer FMT unless they agree to participate, she said. In response, FDA panelists noted that the agency cannot mandate data collection under an enforcement policy.
Lee Jones, founder and chief executive officer of Rebiotix/Ferring, a biotech company focused on the development of microbiome-based therapeutics, argued for tighter restrictions, however, claiming that increased access – and the FDA policy – had led to a fourfold decrease in enrollment since the company began study of its lead FMT product, RBX2660, in 2013.
“We’re dealing with an orphan indication and the patients were hard to come by to begin with,” she said at the meeting. “Enforcement discretion has slowed our clinical development and delayed patient access to FDA-approved therapies by over 2 years.”
An investigator at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Herbert DuPont, MD, who has administered FMT and is conducting a trial for Rebiotix, said his center wanted the FDA policy to continue “allowing multiple groups to perform FMT for recurrent [Clostridium difficile], because of the incredible public health need.”
But, he added, “We’re very concerned about industry and ability to do clinical trials.”
Those trials are important, Dr. DuPont said. “I think we have to address very actively how industry can move these products through,” he said, “because all of us want to remove the F from FMT,” by isolating the necessary elements of the process while not having the risk sometimes associated with human stool.
Policy slow to evolve
“I’m frustrated that it’s taken over 6 years and three draft guidances to get us this far,” Christian John Lillis, executive director of the Peggy Lillis Foundation – a group dedicated to creating awareness about the dangers of C. difficile – said at the meeting.
Mr. Lillis said that probably several thousand deaths had been prevented through increased FMT access, but that it was time to create a concrete policy that advanced the therapy.
The FDA guidance issued in 2013 allowed physicians to provide FMT for recurrent or refractory C. difficile infection without filing an investigational new drug (IND) application.
Clinicians must obtain informed consent that includes a discussion of the risks, and a statement that FMT is investigational. In March 2016, the agency issued revised draft guidance that it was aiming to require stool banks to apply for INDs, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
OpenBiome has flourished under the current policy. It has provided more than 50,000 treatments to 1,200 hospitals and clinics, and has provided FMT for 49 clinical trials and for 16 single patients who received INDs, Dr. Osman said.
But requiring INDs for all centers is a bad idea, he said. “IND requirements are insurmountable for most health centers,” Dr. Osman said, noting that most of the FMT material OpenBiome produces is sent to community-based physicians.
“These requirements would likely mean restrictions in access for stool bank–provided FMT and potentially pushing patients to physician-directed FMT or discouraging physicians from using FMT at all,” he said.
Stacy Kahn, MD, FMT director at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, said that having ready access from a stool bank was crucial.
“Universal donor FMT is much easier, much faster and much more cost effective than what we can do as clinicians,” she said.
New safety and efficacy data
One unpublished study showed that 75% of patients treated since 2011 had a sustained cure, noted Colleen Kelly, MD, a Brown University professor of medicine and principal investigator for the National Institutes of Health–funded national FMT registry (although the data in this study were not from the FMT registry).
The study, which was a collaboration between the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Indiana University School of Medicine, attempted follow-up on 533 patients; 208 were successfully contacted, and an additional 55 had died, none due to FMT.
Dr. Kelly also presented data from the FMT National Registry showing that at 1 month posttransplant, two (1%) of 253 patients had an infection possibly related to FMT; one with Bacteroides fragilis and one with enteropathogenic E. coli. Seven hospitalizations were deemed related or possibly related to FMT, including two recurrences of C. difficile.
At 6 months posttransplant, 8 (5%) of 152 patients had a serious infection, and 23 patients reported a diagnosis of a new condition, primarily diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome, which is common post FMT, said Dr. Kelly, who presented the data on behalf of AGA, which administers the registry.
The AGA supports a continuation of the enforcement discretion as a means to maintain patient access where the evidence supports the use of FMT, but the group does not back use of FMT outside medical supervision, Dr. Kelly said.
This article originally appeared on Medscape. For more news, follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.
Attendees at a public meeting on Nov. 4 gave the US Food and Drug Administration conflicting views on whether the agency should continue to allow a relatively loose regulatory environment for fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) – debating the limits of “enforcement discretion” the FDA now has in place.
The question is especially relevant as use of the procedure is growing, while safety data are not being rigorously collected in all cases. The death of an immunocompromised FMT patient earlier in 2018 from an invasive bacterial infection caused by drug-resistant Escherichia coli, as reported by Medscape Medical News, is seen by some as an example of the consequences of a loose policy.
Still, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) presented new, unpublished follow-up data at the meeting that showed that the majority of FMT patients in a national registry had no adverse events.
Some companies developing FMT-based products argued at the meeting that the agency should impose stricter requirements, while stool banks and clinicians offering the therapy outside of clinical trials said that the current policy – in place since 2013 – in which the FDA has exercised “enforcement discretion,” should be allowed to continue.
“Enforcement discretion has been successful in enabling and overcoming key barriers to access to treatment,” said Majdi Osman, MD, clinical program director at OpenBiome, a nonprofit stool bank based in Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Osman said that 98% of the U.S. population now lives within a 2-hour drive of an FMT provider.
Amanda Kabage, a researcher and donor program coordinator for the Microbiota Therapeutics program at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and herself a former recipient of FMT, said she was in favor of continuing the FDA policy.
“If enforcement discretion were to go away, patients far sicker than I was will not have access. They’ll get sicker and they will die,” Ms. Kabage said.
But, she added, the FDA had missed an opportunity by not insisting on collecting outcomes and safety data. Minnesota has established a patient registry to do just that, and physicians cannot administer FMT unless they agree to participate, she said. In response, FDA panelists noted that the agency cannot mandate data collection under an enforcement policy.
Lee Jones, founder and chief executive officer of Rebiotix/Ferring, a biotech company focused on the development of microbiome-based therapeutics, argued for tighter restrictions, however, claiming that increased access – and the FDA policy – had led to a fourfold decrease in enrollment since the company began study of its lead FMT product, RBX2660, in 2013.
“We’re dealing with an orphan indication and the patients were hard to come by to begin with,” she said at the meeting. “Enforcement discretion has slowed our clinical development and delayed patient access to FDA-approved therapies by over 2 years.”
An investigator at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Herbert DuPont, MD, who has administered FMT and is conducting a trial for Rebiotix, said his center wanted the FDA policy to continue “allowing multiple groups to perform FMT for recurrent [Clostridium difficile], because of the incredible public health need.”
But, he added, “We’re very concerned about industry and ability to do clinical trials.”
Those trials are important, Dr. DuPont said. “I think we have to address very actively how industry can move these products through,” he said, “because all of us want to remove the F from FMT,” by isolating the necessary elements of the process while not having the risk sometimes associated with human stool.
Policy slow to evolve
“I’m frustrated that it’s taken over 6 years and three draft guidances to get us this far,” Christian John Lillis, executive director of the Peggy Lillis Foundation – a group dedicated to creating awareness about the dangers of C. difficile – said at the meeting.
Mr. Lillis said that probably several thousand deaths had been prevented through increased FMT access, but that it was time to create a concrete policy that advanced the therapy.
The FDA guidance issued in 2013 allowed physicians to provide FMT for recurrent or refractory C. difficile infection without filing an investigational new drug (IND) application.
Clinicians must obtain informed consent that includes a discussion of the risks, and a statement that FMT is investigational. In March 2016, the agency issued revised draft guidance that it was aiming to require stool banks to apply for INDs, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
OpenBiome has flourished under the current policy. It has provided more than 50,000 treatments to 1,200 hospitals and clinics, and has provided FMT for 49 clinical trials and for 16 single patients who received INDs, Dr. Osman said.
But requiring INDs for all centers is a bad idea, he said. “IND requirements are insurmountable for most health centers,” Dr. Osman said, noting that most of the FMT material OpenBiome produces is sent to community-based physicians.
“These requirements would likely mean restrictions in access for stool bank–provided FMT and potentially pushing patients to physician-directed FMT or discouraging physicians from using FMT at all,” he said.
Stacy Kahn, MD, FMT director at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, said that having ready access from a stool bank was crucial.
“Universal donor FMT is much easier, much faster and much more cost effective than what we can do as clinicians,” she said.
New safety and efficacy data
One unpublished study showed that 75% of patients treated since 2011 had a sustained cure, noted Colleen Kelly, MD, a Brown University professor of medicine and principal investigator for the National Institutes of Health–funded national FMT registry (although the data in this study were not from the FMT registry).
The study, which was a collaboration between the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Indiana University School of Medicine, attempted follow-up on 533 patients; 208 were successfully contacted, and an additional 55 had died, none due to FMT.
Dr. Kelly also presented data from the FMT National Registry showing that at 1 month posttransplant, two (1%) of 253 patients had an infection possibly related to FMT; one with Bacteroides fragilis and one with enteropathogenic E. coli. Seven hospitalizations were deemed related or possibly related to FMT, including two recurrences of C. difficile.
At 6 months posttransplant, 8 (5%) of 152 patients had a serious infection, and 23 patients reported a diagnosis of a new condition, primarily diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome, which is common post FMT, said Dr. Kelly, who presented the data on behalf of AGA, which administers the registry.
The AGA supports a continuation of the enforcement discretion as a means to maintain patient access where the evidence supports the use of FMT, but the group does not back use of FMT outside medical supervision, Dr. Kelly said.
This article originally appeared on Medscape. For more news, follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.
Attendees at a public meeting on Nov. 4 gave the US Food and Drug Administration conflicting views on whether the agency should continue to allow a relatively loose regulatory environment for fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) – debating the limits of “enforcement discretion” the FDA now has in place.
The question is especially relevant as use of the procedure is growing, while safety data are not being rigorously collected in all cases. The death of an immunocompromised FMT patient earlier in 2018 from an invasive bacterial infection caused by drug-resistant Escherichia coli, as reported by Medscape Medical News, is seen by some as an example of the consequences of a loose policy.
Still, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) presented new, unpublished follow-up data at the meeting that showed that the majority of FMT patients in a national registry had no adverse events.
Some companies developing FMT-based products argued at the meeting that the agency should impose stricter requirements, while stool banks and clinicians offering the therapy outside of clinical trials said that the current policy – in place since 2013 – in which the FDA has exercised “enforcement discretion,” should be allowed to continue.
“Enforcement discretion has been successful in enabling and overcoming key barriers to access to treatment,” said Majdi Osman, MD, clinical program director at OpenBiome, a nonprofit stool bank based in Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Osman said that 98% of the U.S. population now lives within a 2-hour drive of an FMT provider.
Amanda Kabage, a researcher and donor program coordinator for the Microbiota Therapeutics program at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and herself a former recipient of FMT, said she was in favor of continuing the FDA policy.
“If enforcement discretion were to go away, patients far sicker than I was will not have access. They’ll get sicker and they will die,” Ms. Kabage said.
But, she added, the FDA had missed an opportunity by not insisting on collecting outcomes and safety data. Minnesota has established a patient registry to do just that, and physicians cannot administer FMT unless they agree to participate, she said. In response, FDA panelists noted that the agency cannot mandate data collection under an enforcement policy.
Lee Jones, founder and chief executive officer of Rebiotix/Ferring, a biotech company focused on the development of microbiome-based therapeutics, argued for tighter restrictions, however, claiming that increased access – and the FDA policy – had led to a fourfold decrease in enrollment since the company began study of its lead FMT product, RBX2660, in 2013.
“We’re dealing with an orphan indication and the patients were hard to come by to begin with,” she said at the meeting. “Enforcement discretion has slowed our clinical development and delayed patient access to FDA-approved therapies by over 2 years.”
An investigator at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Herbert DuPont, MD, who has administered FMT and is conducting a trial for Rebiotix, said his center wanted the FDA policy to continue “allowing multiple groups to perform FMT for recurrent [Clostridium difficile], because of the incredible public health need.”
But, he added, “We’re very concerned about industry and ability to do clinical trials.”
Those trials are important, Dr. DuPont said. “I think we have to address very actively how industry can move these products through,” he said, “because all of us want to remove the F from FMT,” by isolating the necessary elements of the process while not having the risk sometimes associated with human stool.
Policy slow to evolve
“I’m frustrated that it’s taken over 6 years and three draft guidances to get us this far,” Christian John Lillis, executive director of the Peggy Lillis Foundation – a group dedicated to creating awareness about the dangers of C. difficile – said at the meeting.
Mr. Lillis said that probably several thousand deaths had been prevented through increased FMT access, but that it was time to create a concrete policy that advanced the therapy.
The FDA guidance issued in 2013 allowed physicians to provide FMT for recurrent or refractory C. difficile infection without filing an investigational new drug (IND) application.
Clinicians must obtain informed consent that includes a discussion of the risks, and a statement that FMT is investigational. In March 2016, the agency issued revised draft guidance that it was aiming to require stool banks to apply for INDs, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
OpenBiome has flourished under the current policy. It has provided more than 50,000 treatments to 1,200 hospitals and clinics, and has provided FMT for 49 clinical trials and for 16 single patients who received INDs, Dr. Osman said.
But requiring INDs for all centers is a bad idea, he said. “IND requirements are insurmountable for most health centers,” Dr. Osman said, noting that most of the FMT material OpenBiome produces is sent to community-based physicians.
“These requirements would likely mean restrictions in access for stool bank–provided FMT and potentially pushing patients to physician-directed FMT or discouraging physicians from using FMT at all,” he said.
Stacy Kahn, MD, FMT director at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, said that having ready access from a stool bank was crucial.
“Universal donor FMT is much easier, much faster and much more cost effective than what we can do as clinicians,” she said.
New safety and efficacy data
One unpublished study showed that 75% of patients treated since 2011 had a sustained cure, noted Colleen Kelly, MD, a Brown University professor of medicine and principal investigator for the National Institutes of Health–funded national FMT registry (although the data in this study were not from the FMT registry).
The study, which was a collaboration between the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Indiana University School of Medicine, attempted follow-up on 533 patients; 208 were successfully contacted, and an additional 55 had died, none due to FMT.
Dr. Kelly also presented data from the FMT National Registry showing that at 1 month posttransplant, two (1%) of 253 patients had an infection possibly related to FMT; one with Bacteroides fragilis and one with enteropathogenic E. coli. Seven hospitalizations were deemed related or possibly related to FMT, including two recurrences of C. difficile.
At 6 months posttransplant, 8 (5%) of 152 patients had a serious infection, and 23 patients reported a diagnosis of a new condition, primarily diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome, which is common post FMT, said Dr. Kelly, who presented the data on behalf of AGA, which administers the registry.
The AGA supports a continuation of the enforcement discretion as a means to maintain patient access where the evidence supports the use of FMT, but the group does not back use of FMT outside medical supervision, Dr. Kelly said.
This article originally appeared on Medscape. For more news, follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.
FDA approves Ziextenzo for neutropenia-related infection reduction
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar Ziextenzo (pegfilgrastim-bmez) to reduce the incidence of infection in patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving suppressive anticancer drugs that are associated with febrile neutropenia.
More than 60,000 cancer patients are hospitalized in the United States each year with evidence of neutropenia, resulting in more than 4,000 deaths, according to Ziextenzo maker Sandoz, a Novartis division.
The FDA approval was based on analytical, preclinical, and clinical research, including data from a three-way pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics study that compared pegfilgrastim-bmez with the reference drug pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) from the United States and the European Union. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity were shown between pegfilgrastim-bmez with the reference drugs, and there were no clinically significant differences in safety or immunogenicity.
The most common adverse events associated with pegfilgrastim-bmez are bone pain and pain in the extremities, according to the label.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar Ziextenzo (pegfilgrastim-bmez) to reduce the incidence of infection in patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving suppressive anticancer drugs that are associated with febrile neutropenia.
More than 60,000 cancer patients are hospitalized in the United States each year with evidence of neutropenia, resulting in more than 4,000 deaths, according to Ziextenzo maker Sandoz, a Novartis division.
The FDA approval was based on analytical, preclinical, and clinical research, including data from a three-way pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics study that compared pegfilgrastim-bmez with the reference drug pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) from the United States and the European Union. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity were shown between pegfilgrastim-bmez with the reference drugs, and there were no clinically significant differences in safety or immunogenicity.
The most common adverse events associated with pegfilgrastim-bmez are bone pain and pain in the extremities, according to the label.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar Ziextenzo (pegfilgrastim-bmez) to reduce the incidence of infection in patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving suppressive anticancer drugs that are associated with febrile neutropenia.
More than 60,000 cancer patients are hospitalized in the United States each year with evidence of neutropenia, resulting in more than 4,000 deaths, according to Ziextenzo maker Sandoz, a Novartis division.
The FDA approval was based on analytical, preclinical, and clinical research, including data from a three-way pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics study that compared pegfilgrastim-bmez with the reference drug pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) from the United States and the European Union. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity were shown between pegfilgrastim-bmez with the reference drugs, and there were no clinically significant differences in safety or immunogenicity.
The most common adverse events associated with pegfilgrastim-bmez are bone pain and pain in the extremities, according to the label.
President to nominate oncologist to lead FDA
Stephen M. Hahn, MD, a radiation oncologist and researcher, may soon take the reins of the Food and Drug Administration.
President Trump indicated his intent to nominate Dr. Hahn as FDA Commissioner in a brief Nov.1 statement that outlined Dr. Hahn’s background. Dr. Hahn currently serves as chief medical executive at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, where he heads the radiology oncology division.
Dr. Hahn specializes in treating lung cancer and sarcoma and has authored 220 peer-reviewed original research articles, according to his biography. He was previously chair of the department of radiology oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and also served as a senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute.
Dr. Hahn completed his residency in radiation oncology at NCI and his residency in internal medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.
Margaret Foti, PhD, chief executive officer for the American Association for Cancer Research called Dr. Hahn a renowned expert in radiation oncology and research, an experienced and highly effective administrator, and an innovative leader.
“I have seen firsthand Dr. Hahn’s extraordinary dedication and commitment to cancer patients, and the AACR is extremely confident that he will be an outstanding leader for the FDA,” Dr. Foti said in a statement. “Dr. Hahn, who is board certified in both radiation and medical oncology, is esteemed for the breadth and depth of his scientific knowledge and expertise, and he has consistently advocated for a drug review process at the FDA that is both science-directed and patient-focused.”
The American Society of Clinical Oncology also congratulated Dr. Hahn on the upcoming nomination, noting that he has a strong grasp of the drug development process and understands the realities of working in a complex clinical care environment.
“The role of FDA commissioner requires a strong commitment to advancing the agency’s mission to protect public health across the United States, and an understanding of how to help speed innovations to get new treatments to patients, while also ensuring the safety and efficacy of the medical products that millions of Americans rely on to manage, treat, and cure their cancer,” the society stated. “ASCO has a long and productive history of collaborating with FDA, including with current acting Commissioner Norman E. “Ned” Sharpless, MD, in support of the agency’s important role in reducing cancer incidence, advancing treatment options, and improving the lives of individuals with cancer. We look forward to continuing our close collaboration to make it possible for every American with cancer to have access to medical products that are safe and effective.”
Dr. Sharpless will return to his position as NCI director; he served as interim FDA commissioner from the April departure of then-FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, MD.
“As one of the nation’s leading oncologists who has devoted his entire professional career to helping patients in the fight against cancer, Ned is returning home to NCI to continue this work and we look forward to working closely with him once again,” Francis S. Collins, MD, director of the National Institutes of Health, said in a statement. “I want to thank Dr. Doug Lowy, principal deputy director of NCI, for having stepped in, once again, to take the helm at NCI and lead the institute so skillfully while Ned was at FDA.”
At press time, neither Dr. Hahn nor MD Anderson Cancer Center had returned messages seeking comment about his nomination.
Stephen M. Hahn, MD, a radiation oncologist and researcher, may soon take the reins of the Food and Drug Administration.
President Trump indicated his intent to nominate Dr. Hahn as FDA Commissioner in a brief Nov.1 statement that outlined Dr. Hahn’s background. Dr. Hahn currently serves as chief medical executive at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, where he heads the radiology oncology division.
Dr. Hahn specializes in treating lung cancer and sarcoma and has authored 220 peer-reviewed original research articles, according to his biography. He was previously chair of the department of radiology oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and also served as a senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute.
Dr. Hahn completed his residency in radiation oncology at NCI and his residency in internal medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.
Margaret Foti, PhD, chief executive officer for the American Association for Cancer Research called Dr. Hahn a renowned expert in radiation oncology and research, an experienced and highly effective administrator, and an innovative leader.
“I have seen firsthand Dr. Hahn’s extraordinary dedication and commitment to cancer patients, and the AACR is extremely confident that he will be an outstanding leader for the FDA,” Dr. Foti said in a statement. “Dr. Hahn, who is board certified in both radiation and medical oncology, is esteemed for the breadth and depth of his scientific knowledge and expertise, and he has consistently advocated for a drug review process at the FDA that is both science-directed and patient-focused.”
The American Society of Clinical Oncology also congratulated Dr. Hahn on the upcoming nomination, noting that he has a strong grasp of the drug development process and understands the realities of working in a complex clinical care environment.
“The role of FDA commissioner requires a strong commitment to advancing the agency’s mission to protect public health across the United States, and an understanding of how to help speed innovations to get new treatments to patients, while also ensuring the safety and efficacy of the medical products that millions of Americans rely on to manage, treat, and cure their cancer,” the society stated. “ASCO has a long and productive history of collaborating with FDA, including with current acting Commissioner Norman E. “Ned” Sharpless, MD, in support of the agency’s important role in reducing cancer incidence, advancing treatment options, and improving the lives of individuals with cancer. We look forward to continuing our close collaboration to make it possible for every American with cancer to have access to medical products that are safe and effective.”
Dr. Sharpless will return to his position as NCI director; he served as interim FDA commissioner from the April departure of then-FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, MD.
“As one of the nation’s leading oncologists who has devoted his entire professional career to helping patients in the fight against cancer, Ned is returning home to NCI to continue this work and we look forward to working closely with him once again,” Francis S. Collins, MD, director of the National Institutes of Health, said in a statement. “I want to thank Dr. Doug Lowy, principal deputy director of NCI, for having stepped in, once again, to take the helm at NCI and lead the institute so skillfully while Ned was at FDA.”
At press time, neither Dr. Hahn nor MD Anderson Cancer Center had returned messages seeking comment about his nomination.
Stephen M. Hahn, MD, a radiation oncologist and researcher, may soon take the reins of the Food and Drug Administration.
President Trump indicated his intent to nominate Dr. Hahn as FDA Commissioner in a brief Nov.1 statement that outlined Dr. Hahn’s background. Dr. Hahn currently serves as chief medical executive at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, where he heads the radiology oncology division.
Dr. Hahn specializes in treating lung cancer and sarcoma and has authored 220 peer-reviewed original research articles, according to his biography. He was previously chair of the department of radiology oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and also served as a senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute.
Dr. Hahn completed his residency in radiation oncology at NCI and his residency in internal medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.
Margaret Foti, PhD, chief executive officer for the American Association for Cancer Research called Dr. Hahn a renowned expert in radiation oncology and research, an experienced and highly effective administrator, and an innovative leader.
“I have seen firsthand Dr. Hahn’s extraordinary dedication and commitment to cancer patients, and the AACR is extremely confident that he will be an outstanding leader for the FDA,” Dr. Foti said in a statement. “Dr. Hahn, who is board certified in both radiation and medical oncology, is esteemed for the breadth and depth of his scientific knowledge and expertise, and he has consistently advocated for a drug review process at the FDA that is both science-directed and patient-focused.”
The American Society of Clinical Oncology also congratulated Dr. Hahn on the upcoming nomination, noting that he has a strong grasp of the drug development process and understands the realities of working in a complex clinical care environment.
“The role of FDA commissioner requires a strong commitment to advancing the agency’s mission to protect public health across the United States, and an understanding of how to help speed innovations to get new treatments to patients, while also ensuring the safety and efficacy of the medical products that millions of Americans rely on to manage, treat, and cure their cancer,” the society stated. “ASCO has a long and productive history of collaborating with FDA, including with current acting Commissioner Norman E. “Ned” Sharpless, MD, in support of the agency’s important role in reducing cancer incidence, advancing treatment options, and improving the lives of individuals with cancer. We look forward to continuing our close collaboration to make it possible for every American with cancer to have access to medical products that are safe and effective.”
Dr. Sharpless will return to his position as NCI director; he served as interim FDA commissioner from the April departure of then-FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, MD.
“As one of the nation’s leading oncologists who has devoted his entire professional career to helping patients in the fight against cancer, Ned is returning home to NCI to continue this work and we look forward to working closely with him once again,” Francis S. Collins, MD, director of the National Institutes of Health, said in a statement. “I want to thank Dr. Doug Lowy, principal deputy director of NCI, for having stepped in, once again, to take the helm at NCI and lead the institute so skillfully while Ned was at FDA.”
At press time, neither Dr. Hahn nor MD Anderson Cancer Center had returned messages seeking comment about his nomination.
FDA advisory committee supports birth control patch approval
Most of the committee members based their decisions on the need for additional contraceptive options for patients. However, most also expressed concerns about its efficacy and offered suggestions for product labeling that called attention to high rates of unintended pregnancies and increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in obese women.
The agency’s Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee reviewed safety and efficacy data for AG200-15, a combined hormonal contraceptive patch developed by Agile Therapeutics. The treatment regimen involves application of a patch to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso, and the patch is changed weekly for 3 weeks, followed by 1 week without a patch.
Elizabeth Garner, MD, consultant and former chief medical officer of Agile, presented study data on safety and effectiveness of the patch. The key study (known as Study 23) considered by the FDA included 1,736 women aged 35 years and younger. The primary efficacy endpoint was the pregnancy rate in the women who used the patch. Women reported sexual activity and back-up contraception use in e-diaries.
A total of 68 pregnancies occurred in the study population after 15,165 evaluable cycles, yielding an overall Pearl Index of 5.83 across all weight and body mass index groups. Historically, a Pearl Index of 5 has been the standard measure for effectiveness in contraceptive products, with lower being better. The index is defined as the number of pregnancies per 100 woman-years of product use. For example, a Pearl Index of 0.1 means that 1 in 1,000 women who use the same contraceptive method for 1 year becomes pregnant.
A subgroup analysis showed reduced efficacy in women with a higher BMI. The Pearl Index for women with a BMI of less than 30 kg/m2 (defined as nonobese) was 4.34, whereas in women with a BMI of 30 kg/m2 and higher (defined as obese), the index was 8.64, nearly double that of nonobese women. No significant differences in the index were noted based on race/ethnicity.
The company described the patch as filling a niche and providing an additional alternative for women seeking a noninvasive method of contraception. It proposed a limitation of use (LOU) as part of the product label that would provide detailed information on efficacy based on the Pearl Index for the different categories of BMI and would suggest that the patch may be less effective for women with obesity. Most of the committee members favored use of a LOU statement on the label, but some noted that it might limit prescriptions to nonobese women.
The committee expressed concern over the Pearl data in the study. The FDA has never approved a contraceptive product with a Pearl Index of greater than 5, said Yun Tang, PhD, a statistical reviewer for the agency’s Office of Translational Sciences, who presented the evaluation of the effectiveness of AG200-15.
Key safety concerns raised in discussion included the risk of venous thromboembolism and the risk of unscheduled bleeding. Both of those issues were significantly more common among obese women, said Nneka McNeal-Jackson, MD, clinical reviewer for the FDA, who presented details on the safety profile and risk-benefit considerations for the patch.
Overall, in Study 23, the incidence rate of VTE was 28/10,000 women-years, with cases in five participants. Four of those were deemed related to the patch, and all occurred in obese women.
Virginia C. “Jennie” Leslie, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, voted no to recommending approval of the patch mainly because of efficacy concerns. “My goal is to do no harm, and I have concerns regarding efficacy and giving our patients a false sense of hope,” she said.
Even those members who voted yes expressed concerns about the efficacy data and VTE risk in obese women and recommended postmarketing studies and appropriate labeling to help clinicians in shared decision making with their patients.
Esther Eisenberg, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, noted that the patch fills a need, certainly for women with a BMI less than 30 kg/m2, and suggested that use be limited to women in that lower BMI category.
Other committee members suggested that the product not be restricted based on BMI, but rather that the LOU provide clear explanations of how effectiveness decreases as BMI increases.
David J. Margolis, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, opted to abstain from voting, in part based on concerns about the study design and a lack of additional data from the company.
Most of the committee members based their decisions on the need for additional contraceptive options for patients. However, most also expressed concerns about its efficacy and offered suggestions for product labeling that called attention to high rates of unintended pregnancies and increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in obese women.
The agency’s Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee reviewed safety and efficacy data for AG200-15, a combined hormonal contraceptive patch developed by Agile Therapeutics. The treatment regimen involves application of a patch to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso, and the patch is changed weekly for 3 weeks, followed by 1 week without a patch.
Elizabeth Garner, MD, consultant and former chief medical officer of Agile, presented study data on safety and effectiveness of the patch. The key study (known as Study 23) considered by the FDA included 1,736 women aged 35 years and younger. The primary efficacy endpoint was the pregnancy rate in the women who used the patch. Women reported sexual activity and back-up contraception use in e-diaries.
A total of 68 pregnancies occurred in the study population after 15,165 evaluable cycles, yielding an overall Pearl Index of 5.83 across all weight and body mass index groups. Historically, a Pearl Index of 5 has been the standard measure for effectiveness in contraceptive products, with lower being better. The index is defined as the number of pregnancies per 100 woman-years of product use. For example, a Pearl Index of 0.1 means that 1 in 1,000 women who use the same contraceptive method for 1 year becomes pregnant.
A subgroup analysis showed reduced efficacy in women with a higher BMI. The Pearl Index for women with a BMI of less than 30 kg/m2 (defined as nonobese) was 4.34, whereas in women with a BMI of 30 kg/m2 and higher (defined as obese), the index was 8.64, nearly double that of nonobese women. No significant differences in the index were noted based on race/ethnicity.
The company described the patch as filling a niche and providing an additional alternative for women seeking a noninvasive method of contraception. It proposed a limitation of use (LOU) as part of the product label that would provide detailed information on efficacy based on the Pearl Index for the different categories of BMI and would suggest that the patch may be less effective for women with obesity. Most of the committee members favored use of a LOU statement on the label, but some noted that it might limit prescriptions to nonobese women.
The committee expressed concern over the Pearl data in the study. The FDA has never approved a contraceptive product with a Pearl Index of greater than 5, said Yun Tang, PhD, a statistical reviewer for the agency’s Office of Translational Sciences, who presented the evaluation of the effectiveness of AG200-15.
Key safety concerns raised in discussion included the risk of venous thromboembolism and the risk of unscheduled bleeding. Both of those issues were significantly more common among obese women, said Nneka McNeal-Jackson, MD, clinical reviewer for the FDA, who presented details on the safety profile and risk-benefit considerations for the patch.
Overall, in Study 23, the incidence rate of VTE was 28/10,000 women-years, with cases in five participants. Four of those were deemed related to the patch, and all occurred in obese women.
Virginia C. “Jennie” Leslie, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, voted no to recommending approval of the patch mainly because of efficacy concerns. “My goal is to do no harm, and I have concerns regarding efficacy and giving our patients a false sense of hope,” she said.
Even those members who voted yes expressed concerns about the efficacy data and VTE risk in obese women and recommended postmarketing studies and appropriate labeling to help clinicians in shared decision making with their patients.
Esther Eisenberg, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, noted that the patch fills a need, certainly for women with a BMI less than 30 kg/m2, and suggested that use be limited to women in that lower BMI category.
Other committee members suggested that the product not be restricted based on BMI, but rather that the LOU provide clear explanations of how effectiveness decreases as BMI increases.
David J. Margolis, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, opted to abstain from voting, in part based on concerns about the study design and a lack of additional data from the company.
Most of the committee members based their decisions on the need for additional contraceptive options for patients. However, most also expressed concerns about its efficacy and offered suggestions for product labeling that called attention to high rates of unintended pregnancies and increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in obese women.
The agency’s Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee reviewed safety and efficacy data for AG200-15, a combined hormonal contraceptive patch developed by Agile Therapeutics. The treatment regimen involves application of a patch to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso, and the patch is changed weekly for 3 weeks, followed by 1 week without a patch.
Elizabeth Garner, MD, consultant and former chief medical officer of Agile, presented study data on safety and effectiveness of the patch. The key study (known as Study 23) considered by the FDA included 1,736 women aged 35 years and younger. The primary efficacy endpoint was the pregnancy rate in the women who used the patch. Women reported sexual activity and back-up contraception use in e-diaries.
A total of 68 pregnancies occurred in the study population after 15,165 evaluable cycles, yielding an overall Pearl Index of 5.83 across all weight and body mass index groups. Historically, a Pearl Index of 5 has been the standard measure for effectiveness in contraceptive products, with lower being better. The index is defined as the number of pregnancies per 100 woman-years of product use. For example, a Pearl Index of 0.1 means that 1 in 1,000 women who use the same contraceptive method for 1 year becomes pregnant.
A subgroup analysis showed reduced efficacy in women with a higher BMI. The Pearl Index for women with a BMI of less than 30 kg/m2 (defined as nonobese) was 4.34, whereas in women with a BMI of 30 kg/m2 and higher (defined as obese), the index was 8.64, nearly double that of nonobese women. No significant differences in the index were noted based on race/ethnicity.
The company described the patch as filling a niche and providing an additional alternative for women seeking a noninvasive method of contraception. It proposed a limitation of use (LOU) as part of the product label that would provide detailed information on efficacy based on the Pearl Index for the different categories of BMI and would suggest that the patch may be less effective for women with obesity. Most of the committee members favored use of a LOU statement on the label, but some noted that it might limit prescriptions to nonobese women.
The committee expressed concern over the Pearl data in the study. The FDA has never approved a contraceptive product with a Pearl Index of greater than 5, said Yun Tang, PhD, a statistical reviewer for the agency’s Office of Translational Sciences, who presented the evaluation of the effectiveness of AG200-15.
Key safety concerns raised in discussion included the risk of venous thromboembolism and the risk of unscheduled bleeding. Both of those issues were significantly more common among obese women, said Nneka McNeal-Jackson, MD, clinical reviewer for the FDA, who presented details on the safety profile and risk-benefit considerations for the patch.
Overall, in Study 23, the incidence rate of VTE was 28/10,000 women-years, with cases in five participants. Four of those were deemed related to the patch, and all occurred in obese women.
Virginia C. “Jennie” Leslie, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, voted no to recommending approval of the patch mainly because of efficacy concerns. “My goal is to do no harm, and I have concerns regarding efficacy and giving our patients a false sense of hope,” she said.
Even those members who voted yes expressed concerns about the efficacy data and VTE risk in obese women and recommended postmarketing studies and appropriate labeling to help clinicians in shared decision making with their patients.
Esther Eisenberg, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, noted that the patch fills a need, certainly for women with a BMI less than 30 kg/m2, and suggested that use be limited to women in that lower BMI category.
Other committee members suggested that the product not be restricted based on BMI, but rather that the LOU provide clear explanations of how effectiveness decreases as BMI increases.
David J. Margolis, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, opted to abstain from voting, in part based on concerns about the study design and a lack of additional data from the company.
FROM THE FDA
FDA approves diroximel fumarate for relapsing MS
The Food and Drug Administration has approved diroximel fumarate (Vumerity) for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) in adults, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, according to an Oct. 30 announcement from its developers, Biogen and Alkermes.
The approval is based on pharmacokinetic studies that established the bioequivalence of diroximel fumarate and dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), and it relied in part on the safety and efficacy data for dimethyl fumarate, which was approved in 2013. Diroximel fumarate rapidly converts to monomethyl fumarate, the same active metabolite as dimethyl fumarate.
Diroximel fumarate may be better tolerated than dimethyl fumarate. A trial found that the newer drug has significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability, the developers of the drug announced in July. In addition, the drug application for diroximel fumarate included interim data from EVOLVE-MS-1, an ongoing, open-label, 2-year safety study evaluating diroximel fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Researchers found a 6.3% rate of treatment discontinuation attributable to adverse events. Less than 1% of patients discontinued treatment because of gastrointestinal adverse events.
Serious side effects of diroximel fumarate may include allergic reaction, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, decreases in white blood cell count, and liver problems. Flushing and stomach problems are the most common side effects, which may decrease over time.
Biogen plans to make diroximel fumarate available in the United States in the near future, the company said. Prescribing information is available online.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved diroximel fumarate (Vumerity) for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) in adults, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, according to an Oct. 30 announcement from its developers, Biogen and Alkermes.
The approval is based on pharmacokinetic studies that established the bioequivalence of diroximel fumarate and dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), and it relied in part on the safety and efficacy data for dimethyl fumarate, which was approved in 2013. Diroximel fumarate rapidly converts to monomethyl fumarate, the same active metabolite as dimethyl fumarate.
Diroximel fumarate may be better tolerated than dimethyl fumarate. A trial found that the newer drug has significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability, the developers of the drug announced in July. In addition, the drug application for diroximel fumarate included interim data from EVOLVE-MS-1, an ongoing, open-label, 2-year safety study evaluating diroximel fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Researchers found a 6.3% rate of treatment discontinuation attributable to adverse events. Less than 1% of patients discontinued treatment because of gastrointestinal adverse events.
Serious side effects of diroximel fumarate may include allergic reaction, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, decreases in white blood cell count, and liver problems. Flushing and stomach problems are the most common side effects, which may decrease over time.
Biogen plans to make diroximel fumarate available in the United States in the near future, the company said. Prescribing information is available online.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved diroximel fumarate (Vumerity) for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) in adults, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, according to an Oct. 30 announcement from its developers, Biogen and Alkermes.
The approval is based on pharmacokinetic studies that established the bioequivalence of diroximel fumarate and dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), and it relied in part on the safety and efficacy data for dimethyl fumarate, which was approved in 2013. Diroximel fumarate rapidly converts to monomethyl fumarate, the same active metabolite as dimethyl fumarate.
Diroximel fumarate may be better tolerated than dimethyl fumarate. A trial found that the newer drug has significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability, the developers of the drug announced in July. In addition, the drug application for diroximel fumarate included interim data from EVOLVE-MS-1, an ongoing, open-label, 2-year safety study evaluating diroximel fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Researchers found a 6.3% rate of treatment discontinuation attributable to adverse events. Less than 1% of patients discontinued treatment because of gastrointestinal adverse events.
Serious side effects of diroximel fumarate may include allergic reaction, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, decreases in white blood cell count, and liver problems. Flushing and stomach problems are the most common side effects, which may decrease over time.
Biogen plans to make diroximel fumarate available in the United States in the near future, the company said. Prescribing information is available online.
Three companies issue recall for ranitidine because of NDMA impurities
The Food and Drug Administration has issued an alert to health care providers and patients about voluntary recalls of ranitidine (Zantac) from three separate companies because of the potential of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in the medicine.
According to the FDA alert, Perrigo is recalling over-the-counter ranitidine tablets of all sizes, Novitium Pharma is recalling all unexpired quantities and lots of ranitidine hydrochloride capsules, and Lannett is recalling all unexpired lots of prescription ranitidine syrup (ranitidine oral solution (15 mg/mL).
Patients who are using over-the-counter ranitidine should consider switching to an alternative, such as famotidine, cimetidine, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, and omeprazole, the FDA noted. None of these medications have shown evidence of containing NDMA.
The alert is the fifth update on ranitidine since the initial FDA announcement that NDMA had been found in ranitidine on Sept. 13, 2019.
Lillian M. Beard, MD, who has a private pediatrics practice in Silver Spring, Md., commented, “We have been grappling with concerns about our patients currently taking ranitidine and how we might address the issue. In our practice, we have had very few questions so far. We anticipate that as their awareness is heightened, our parents will seek our advice. In querying our GI colleagues for recommendations on managing the conversations with parents about their concerns about possible carcinogen contamination in ranitidine samples, our practice group was advised that the FDA is not currently recommending that patients on the medication need to immediately stop, pending further investigation.”*
Dr. Beard, also an associate clinical professor of pediatrics at George Washington University in Washington, continued, “Our GI colleagues at Children’s National currently are not starting patients on ranitidine, but choosing a different H2 blocker, famotidine (Pepsid). They are not trying to reach out to patients on ranitidine to ‘switch,’ but when parents call in to refill prescriptions or for management advice, they are switching them to famotidine. Until further notification and or clarification, I will do the same.”
*Updated 11/5/2019
The Food and Drug Administration has issued an alert to health care providers and patients about voluntary recalls of ranitidine (Zantac) from three separate companies because of the potential of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in the medicine.
According to the FDA alert, Perrigo is recalling over-the-counter ranitidine tablets of all sizes, Novitium Pharma is recalling all unexpired quantities and lots of ranitidine hydrochloride capsules, and Lannett is recalling all unexpired lots of prescription ranitidine syrup (ranitidine oral solution (15 mg/mL).
Patients who are using over-the-counter ranitidine should consider switching to an alternative, such as famotidine, cimetidine, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, and omeprazole, the FDA noted. None of these medications have shown evidence of containing NDMA.
The alert is the fifth update on ranitidine since the initial FDA announcement that NDMA had been found in ranitidine on Sept. 13, 2019.
Lillian M. Beard, MD, who has a private pediatrics practice in Silver Spring, Md., commented, “We have been grappling with concerns about our patients currently taking ranitidine and how we might address the issue. In our practice, we have had very few questions so far. We anticipate that as their awareness is heightened, our parents will seek our advice. In querying our GI colleagues for recommendations on managing the conversations with parents about their concerns about possible carcinogen contamination in ranitidine samples, our practice group was advised that the FDA is not currently recommending that patients on the medication need to immediately stop, pending further investigation.”*
Dr. Beard, also an associate clinical professor of pediatrics at George Washington University in Washington, continued, “Our GI colleagues at Children’s National currently are not starting patients on ranitidine, but choosing a different H2 blocker, famotidine (Pepsid). They are not trying to reach out to patients on ranitidine to ‘switch,’ but when parents call in to refill prescriptions or for management advice, they are switching them to famotidine. Until further notification and or clarification, I will do the same.”
*Updated 11/5/2019
The Food and Drug Administration has issued an alert to health care providers and patients about voluntary recalls of ranitidine (Zantac) from three separate companies because of the potential of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in the medicine.
According to the FDA alert, Perrigo is recalling over-the-counter ranitidine tablets of all sizes, Novitium Pharma is recalling all unexpired quantities and lots of ranitidine hydrochloride capsules, and Lannett is recalling all unexpired lots of prescription ranitidine syrup (ranitidine oral solution (15 mg/mL).
Patients who are using over-the-counter ranitidine should consider switching to an alternative, such as famotidine, cimetidine, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, and omeprazole, the FDA noted. None of these medications have shown evidence of containing NDMA.
The alert is the fifth update on ranitidine since the initial FDA announcement that NDMA had been found in ranitidine on Sept. 13, 2019.
Lillian M. Beard, MD, who has a private pediatrics practice in Silver Spring, Md., commented, “We have been grappling with concerns about our patients currently taking ranitidine and how we might address the issue. In our practice, we have had very few questions so far. We anticipate that as their awareness is heightened, our parents will seek our advice. In querying our GI colleagues for recommendations on managing the conversations with parents about their concerns about possible carcinogen contamination in ranitidine samples, our practice group was advised that the FDA is not currently recommending that patients on the medication need to immediately stop, pending further investigation.”*
Dr. Beard, also an associate clinical professor of pediatrics at George Washington University in Washington, continued, “Our GI colleagues at Children’s National currently are not starting patients on ranitidine, but choosing a different H2 blocker, famotidine (Pepsid). They are not trying to reach out to patients on ranitidine to ‘switch,’ but when parents call in to refill prescriptions or for management advice, they are switching them to famotidine. Until further notification and or clarification, I will do the same.”
*Updated 11/5/2019