User login
ACIP approves child and adolescent vaccination schedule for 2020
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the child and adolescent immunization schedule for 2020.
by busy providers,” Candice Robinson, MD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at the CDC’s October meeting of ACIP. Updates reflect changes in language in the adult vaccination schedule, notably the change in the definition of “contraindication.” The updated wording in the Notes substitutes “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of the word “contraindicated” only.
Another notable change was the addition of information on adolescent vaccination of children who received the meningococcal ACWY vaccine before 10 years of age. For “children in whom boosters are not recommended due to an ongoing or increased risk of meningococcal disease” (such as a healthy child traveling to an endemic area), they should receive MenACWY according to the recommended adolescent schedule. But those children for whom boosters are recommended because of increased disease risk from conditions including complement deficiency, HIV, or asplenia should “follow the booster schedule for persons at increased risk.”
Other changes include restructuring of the notes for the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in special situations. The schedule now uses a bulleted list to show that LAIV should not be used in the following circumstances:
- Having history of severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine or vaccine component.
- Using aspirin or a salicylate-containing medication.
- Being aged 2-4 years with a history of asthma or wheezing.
- Having immunocompromised conditions.
- Having anatomic or functional asplenia.
- Having cochlear implants.
- Experiencing cerebrospinal fluid–oropharyngeal communication.
- Having immunocompromised close contacts or caregivers.
- Being pregnant.
- Having received flu antivirals within the previous 48 hours.
In addition, language on shared clinical decision-making was added to the notes on the meningococcal B vaccine for adolescents and young adults aged 18-23 years not at increased risk. Based on shared clinical decision making, the recommendation is a “two-dose series of Bexsero at least 1 month apart” or “two-dose series of Trumenba at least 6 months apart; if dose two is administered earlier than 6 months, administer a third dose at least 4 months after dose two.”
Several vaccines’ Notes sections, including hepatitis B and meningococcal disease, added links to detailed recommendations in the corresponding issues of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, to allow clinicians easy access to additional information.
View the current Child & Adolescent Vaccination Schedule here.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the child and adolescent immunization schedule for 2020.
by busy providers,” Candice Robinson, MD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at the CDC’s October meeting of ACIP. Updates reflect changes in language in the adult vaccination schedule, notably the change in the definition of “contraindication.” The updated wording in the Notes substitutes “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of the word “contraindicated” only.
Another notable change was the addition of information on adolescent vaccination of children who received the meningococcal ACWY vaccine before 10 years of age. For “children in whom boosters are not recommended due to an ongoing or increased risk of meningococcal disease” (such as a healthy child traveling to an endemic area), they should receive MenACWY according to the recommended adolescent schedule. But those children for whom boosters are recommended because of increased disease risk from conditions including complement deficiency, HIV, or asplenia should “follow the booster schedule for persons at increased risk.”
Other changes include restructuring of the notes for the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in special situations. The schedule now uses a bulleted list to show that LAIV should not be used in the following circumstances:
- Having history of severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine or vaccine component.
- Using aspirin or a salicylate-containing medication.
- Being aged 2-4 years with a history of asthma or wheezing.
- Having immunocompromised conditions.
- Having anatomic or functional asplenia.
- Having cochlear implants.
- Experiencing cerebrospinal fluid–oropharyngeal communication.
- Having immunocompromised close contacts or caregivers.
- Being pregnant.
- Having received flu antivirals within the previous 48 hours.
In addition, language on shared clinical decision-making was added to the notes on the meningococcal B vaccine for adolescents and young adults aged 18-23 years not at increased risk. Based on shared clinical decision making, the recommendation is a “two-dose series of Bexsero at least 1 month apart” or “two-dose series of Trumenba at least 6 months apart; if dose two is administered earlier than 6 months, administer a third dose at least 4 months after dose two.”
Several vaccines’ Notes sections, including hepatitis B and meningococcal disease, added links to detailed recommendations in the corresponding issues of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, to allow clinicians easy access to additional information.
View the current Child & Adolescent Vaccination Schedule here.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the child and adolescent immunization schedule for 2020.
by busy providers,” Candice Robinson, MD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at the CDC’s October meeting of ACIP. Updates reflect changes in language in the adult vaccination schedule, notably the change in the definition of “contraindication.” The updated wording in the Notes substitutes “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of the word “contraindicated” only.
Another notable change was the addition of information on adolescent vaccination of children who received the meningococcal ACWY vaccine before 10 years of age. For “children in whom boosters are not recommended due to an ongoing or increased risk of meningococcal disease” (such as a healthy child traveling to an endemic area), they should receive MenACWY according to the recommended adolescent schedule. But those children for whom boosters are recommended because of increased disease risk from conditions including complement deficiency, HIV, or asplenia should “follow the booster schedule for persons at increased risk.”
Other changes include restructuring of the notes for the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in special situations. The schedule now uses a bulleted list to show that LAIV should not be used in the following circumstances:
- Having history of severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine or vaccine component.
- Using aspirin or a salicylate-containing medication.
- Being aged 2-4 years with a history of asthma or wheezing.
- Having immunocompromised conditions.
- Having anatomic or functional asplenia.
- Having cochlear implants.
- Experiencing cerebrospinal fluid–oropharyngeal communication.
- Having immunocompromised close contacts or caregivers.
- Being pregnant.
- Having received flu antivirals within the previous 48 hours.
In addition, language on shared clinical decision-making was added to the notes on the meningococcal B vaccine for adolescents and young adults aged 18-23 years not at increased risk. Based on shared clinical decision making, the recommendation is a “two-dose series of Bexsero at least 1 month apart” or “two-dose series of Trumenba at least 6 months apart; if dose two is administered earlier than 6 months, administer a third dose at least 4 months after dose two.”
Several vaccines’ Notes sections, including hepatitis B and meningococcal disease, added links to detailed recommendations in the corresponding issues of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, to allow clinicians easy access to additional information.
View the current Child & Adolescent Vaccination Schedule here.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM AN ACIP MEETING
FDA approves onabotulinumtoxinA for pediatric lower limb spasticity
The Food and Drug Administration has approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for treatment of pediatric lower limb spasticity in patients aged 2-17 years, excluding those in whom it is associated with cerebral palsy, according to an announcement from Allergan.
The approval is based on a phase 3 study evaluating safety and efficacy in more than 300 patients with lower limb spasticity. Although patients with cerebral palsy were included in the study, they’re excluded from this indication. Orphan Drug Exclusivity prevents it from being indicated for lower limb spasticity in cerebral palsy because abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport) already has marketing exclusivity for the indication. Botox also is indicated for children aged 2-17 years of age with upper limb spasticity, as well as nine other indications.
OnabotulinumtoxinA comes with warnings, including problems of swallowing, speaking, or breathing and even risk of spread of the toxin. It also may cause loss of strength or general muscle weakness, vision problems, or dizziness within hours or weeks of administration. Serious and sometimes immediate allergic reactions have been reported. Patients and health care professionals should discuss various concerns before treatment, including whether the patient has recently received antibiotics by injection, or has taken muscle relaxants, allergy or cold medicine, sleep medicine, and aspirinlike products or blood thinners. It’s important to note that the dose of onabotulinumtoxinA is not the same as that for other botulinum toxin products. The full prescribing information is available on the Allergan website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for treatment of pediatric lower limb spasticity in patients aged 2-17 years, excluding those in whom it is associated with cerebral palsy, according to an announcement from Allergan.
The approval is based on a phase 3 study evaluating safety and efficacy in more than 300 patients with lower limb spasticity. Although patients with cerebral palsy were included in the study, they’re excluded from this indication. Orphan Drug Exclusivity prevents it from being indicated for lower limb spasticity in cerebral palsy because abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport) already has marketing exclusivity for the indication. Botox also is indicated for children aged 2-17 years of age with upper limb spasticity, as well as nine other indications.
OnabotulinumtoxinA comes with warnings, including problems of swallowing, speaking, or breathing and even risk of spread of the toxin. It also may cause loss of strength or general muscle weakness, vision problems, or dizziness within hours or weeks of administration. Serious and sometimes immediate allergic reactions have been reported. Patients and health care professionals should discuss various concerns before treatment, including whether the patient has recently received antibiotics by injection, or has taken muscle relaxants, allergy or cold medicine, sleep medicine, and aspirinlike products or blood thinners. It’s important to note that the dose of onabotulinumtoxinA is not the same as that for other botulinum toxin products. The full prescribing information is available on the Allergan website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for treatment of pediatric lower limb spasticity in patients aged 2-17 years, excluding those in whom it is associated with cerebral palsy, according to an announcement from Allergan.
The approval is based on a phase 3 study evaluating safety and efficacy in more than 300 patients with lower limb spasticity. Although patients with cerebral palsy were included in the study, they’re excluded from this indication. Orphan Drug Exclusivity prevents it from being indicated for lower limb spasticity in cerebral palsy because abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport) already has marketing exclusivity for the indication. Botox also is indicated for children aged 2-17 years of age with upper limb spasticity, as well as nine other indications.
OnabotulinumtoxinA comes with warnings, including problems of swallowing, speaking, or breathing and even risk of spread of the toxin. It also may cause loss of strength or general muscle weakness, vision problems, or dizziness within hours or weeks of administration. Serious and sometimes immediate allergic reactions have been reported. Patients and health care professionals should discuss various concerns before treatment, including whether the patient has recently received antibiotics by injection, or has taken muscle relaxants, allergy or cold medicine, sleep medicine, and aspirinlike products or blood thinners. It’s important to note that the dose of onabotulinumtoxinA is not the same as that for other botulinum toxin products. The full prescribing information is available on the Allergan website.
FDA proposes new breast implant labeling with a boxed warning
Breast implants sold in the United States may soon require a boxed warning in their label, along with other label changes proposed by the Food and Drug Administration aimed at better informing prospective patients and clinicians of the potential risks from breast implants.
Other elements of the proposed labeling changes include creation of a patient-decision checklist, new recommendations for follow-up imaging to monitor for implant rupture, inclusion of detailed and understandable information about materials in the device, and provision of a device card to each patient with details on the specific implant they received.
These labeling changes all stemmed from a breast implant hearing held by the agency’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel in March 2019, according to the draft guidance document officially released by the FDA on Oct. 24.
The proposed labeling changes were generally welcomed by patient advocates and by clinicians as a reasonable response to the concerns discussed at the March hearing. In an earlier move to address issues brought up at the hearing, the FDA in July arranged for a recall for certain Allergan models of textured breast implants because of their link with the development of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).
The boxed warning proposed by the FDA would highlight four specific facts that patients, physicians, and surgeons should know about breast implants: They are not considered lifetime devices, the chance of developing complications from implants increases over time, some complications require additional surgery, and placement of breast implants has been associated with development of BIA-ALCL and may also be associated with certain systemic symptoms.
The FDA also proposed four other notable labeling changes:
- Creation of a patient-decision checklist to better systematize the informed consent process and make sure that certain aspects of breast implant placement are clearly brought to patients’ attention. The FDA proposed that patients sign their checklist attesting to having read and understood the information and that patients receive a take-home copy for their future reference. Proposed elements of the checklist include situations to not use breast implants; considerations for successful implant recipients; the risks of breast implant surgery; the importance of appropriate physician education, training, and experience; the risk for developing BIA-ALCL or systemic symptoms; and discussion of options other than breast implants.
- A new scheme for systematically and serially using imaging to screen for implant rupture that designates for the first time that ultrasound is an acceptable alternative to MRI and relies on a schedule by which either method initially screens the implant 5-6 years post operatively and then every 2 years thereafter.
- Detailed and understandable information about each material component of the implant with further information on possible adverse health effects of these compounds.
- A device card that patients should receive after their surgery with the implant’s name, serial number, and other identifiers; the boxed warning information; and a web link for accessing more up-to-date information.
The patient group Breast Implant Victim Advocacy praised the draft guidance. “The March Advisory Committee meeting seems to have prompted a shift by the FDA, surgeons, and industry,” said Jamee Cook, cofounder of the group. “We are definitely seeing a change in patient engagement. The FDA has been cooperating with patients and listening to our concerns. We still have a long way to go in raising public awareness of breast implant issues, but progress over the past 1-2 years has been amazing.”
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research in Washington, gave the draft guidance a mixed review. “The FDA’s draft includes the types of information that we had proposed to the FDA in recent months in our work with patient advocates and plastic surgeons,” she said. “However, it is not as informative as it should be in describing well-designed studies indicating a risk of systemic illnesses. Patients deserve to make better-informed decisions in the future than most women considering breast implants have been able to make” in the past.
Patricia McGuire, MD, a St. Louis plastic surgeon who specializes in breast surgery and has studied breast implant illness, declared the guidance to be “reasonable.”
“I think the changes address the concerns expressed by patients during the [March] hearing; I agree with everything the FDA proposed in the guidance document,” Dr. McGuire said. “The boxed warning is reasonable and needs to be part of the informed consent process. I also agree with the changes in screening implants postoperatively. Most patients do not get MRI examinations. High-resolution ultrasound is more convenient and cost effective.”
The boxed warning was rated as “reasonably strong” and “the most serious step the FDA can take short of taking a device off the market,” but in the case of breast implants, a wider recall of textured implants than what the FDA arranged last July would be even more appropriate, commented Sidney M. Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen. He also faulted the agency for not taking quicker action in mandating inclusion of the proposed boxed warning.
Issuing the labeling changes as draft guidance “is a ministep forward,” but also a process that “guarantees delay” and “creeps along at a dangerously slow pace,” Dr. Wolfe said. “The FDA is delaying what should be inevitable. The agency could put the boxed warning in place right now if they had the guts to do it.”
Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Allergan, Establishment Labs, and Hans Biomed. Ms. Cook, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Wolfe reported having no commercial disclosures.
Breast implants sold in the United States may soon require a boxed warning in their label, along with other label changes proposed by the Food and Drug Administration aimed at better informing prospective patients and clinicians of the potential risks from breast implants.
Other elements of the proposed labeling changes include creation of a patient-decision checklist, new recommendations for follow-up imaging to monitor for implant rupture, inclusion of detailed and understandable information about materials in the device, and provision of a device card to each patient with details on the specific implant they received.
These labeling changes all stemmed from a breast implant hearing held by the agency’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel in March 2019, according to the draft guidance document officially released by the FDA on Oct. 24.
The proposed labeling changes were generally welcomed by patient advocates and by clinicians as a reasonable response to the concerns discussed at the March hearing. In an earlier move to address issues brought up at the hearing, the FDA in July arranged for a recall for certain Allergan models of textured breast implants because of their link with the development of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).
The boxed warning proposed by the FDA would highlight four specific facts that patients, physicians, and surgeons should know about breast implants: They are not considered lifetime devices, the chance of developing complications from implants increases over time, some complications require additional surgery, and placement of breast implants has been associated with development of BIA-ALCL and may also be associated with certain systemic symptoms.
The FDA also proposed four other notable labeling changes:
- Creation of a patient-decision checklist to better systematize the informed consent process and make sure that certain aspects of breast implant placement are clearly brought to patients’ attention. The FDA proposed that patients sign their checklist attesting to having read and understood the information and that patients receive a take-home copy for their future reference. Proposed elements of the checklist include situations to not use breast implants; considerations for successful implant recipients; the risks of breast implant surgery; the importance of appropriate physician education, training, and experience; the risk for developing BIA-ALCL or systemic symptoms; and discussion of options other than breast implants.
- A new scheme for systematically and serially using imaging to screen for implant rupture that designates for the first time that ultrasound is an acceptable alternative to MRI and relies on a schedule by which either method initially screens the implant 5-6 years post operatively and then every 2 years thereafter.
- Detailed and understandable information about each material component of the implant with further information on possible adverse health effects of these compounds.
- A device card that patients should receive after their surgery with the implant’s name, serial number, and other identifiers; the boxed warning information; and a web link for accessing more up-to-date information.
The patient group Breast Implant Victim Advocacy praised the draft guidance. “The March Advisory Committee meeting seems to have prompted a shift by the FDA, surgeons, and industry,” said Jamee Cook, cofounder of the group. “We are definitely seeing a change in patient engagement. The FDA has been cooperating with patients and listening to our concerns. We still have a long way to go in raising public awareness of breast implant issues, but progress over the past 1-2 years has been amazing.”
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research in Washington, gave the draft guidance a mixed review. “The FDA’s draft includes the types of information that we had proposed to the FDA in recent months in our work with patient advocates and plastic surgeons,” she said. “However, it is not as informative as it should be in describing well-designed studies indicating a risk of systemic illnesses. Patients deserve to make better-informed decisions in the future than most women considering breast implants have been able to make” in the past.
Patricia McGuire, MD, a St. Louis plastic surgeon who specializes in breast surgery and has studied breast implant illness, declared the guidance to be “reasonable.”
“I think the changes address the concerns expressed by patients during the [March] hearing; I agree with everything the FDA proposed in the guidance document,” Dr. McGuire said. “The boxed warning is reasonable and needs to be part of the informed consent process. I also agree with the changes in screening implants postoperatively. Most patients do not get MRI examinations. High-resolution ultrasound is more convenient and cost effective.”
The boxed warning was rated as “reasonably strong” and “the most serious step the FDA can take short of taking a device off the market,” but in the case of breast implants, a wider recall of textured implants than what the FDA arranged last July would be even more appropriate, commented Sidney M. Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen. He also faulted the agency for not taking quicker action in mandating inclusion of the proposed boxed warning.
Issuing the labeling changes as draft guidance “is a ministep forward,” but also a process that “guarantees delay” and “creeps along at a dangerously slow pace,” Dr. Wolfe said. “The FDA is delaying what should be inevitable. The agency could put the boxed warning in place right now if they had the guts to do it.”
Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Allergan, Establishment Labs, and Hans Biomed. Ms. Cook, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Wolfe reported having no commercial disclosures.
Breast implants sold in the United States may soon require a boxed warning in their label, along with other label changes proposed by the Food and Drug Administration aimed at better informing prospective patients and clinicians of the potential risks from breast implants.
Other elements of the proposed labeling changes include creation of a patient-decision checklist, new recommendations for follow-up imaging to monitor for implant rupture, inclusion of detailed and understandable information about materials in the device, and provision of a device card to each patient with details on the specific implant they received.
These labeling changes all stemmed from a breast implant hearing held by the agency’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel in March 2019, according to the draft guidance document officially released by the FDA on Oct. 24.
The proposed labeling changes were generally welcomed by patient advocates and by clinicians as a reasonable response to the concerns discussed at the March hearing. In an earlier move to address issues brought up at the hearing, the FDA in July arranged for a recall for certain Allergan models of textured breast implants because of their link with the development of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).
The boxed warning proposed by the FDA would highlight four specific facts that patients, physicians, and surgeons should know about breast implants: They are not considered lifetime devices, the chance of developing complications from implants increases over time, some complications require additional surgery, and placement of breast implants has been associated with development of BIA-ALCL and may also be associated with certain systemic symptoms.
The FDA also proposed four other notable labeling changes:
- Creation of a patient-decision checklist to better systematize the informed consent process and make sure that certain aspects of breast implant placement are clearly brought to patients’ attention. The FDA proposed that patients sign their checklist attesting to having read and understood the information and that patients receive a take-home copy for their future reference. Proposed elements of the checklist include situations to not use breast implants; considerations for successful implant recipients; the risks of breast implant surgery; the importance of appropriate physician education, training, and experience; the risk for developing BIA-ALCL or systemic symptoms; and discussion of options other than breast implants.
- A new scheme for systematically and serially using imaging to screen for implant rupture that designates for the first time that ultrasound is an acceptable alternative to MRI and relies on a schedule by which either method initially screens the implant 5-6 years post operatively and then every 2 years thereafter.
- Detailed and understandable information about each material component of the implant with further information on possible adverse health effects of these compounds.
- A device card that patients should receive after their surgery with the implant’s name, serial number, and other identifiers; the boxed warning information; and a web link for accessing more up-to-date information.
The patient group Breast Implant Victim Advocacy praised the draft guidance. “The March Advisory Committee meeting seems to have prompted a shift by the FDA, surgeons, and industry,” said Jamee Cook, cofounder of the group. “We are definitely seeing a change in patient engagement. The FDA has been cooperating with patients and listening to our concerns. We still have a long way to go in raising public awareness of breast implant issues, but progress over the past 1-2 years has been amazing.”
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research in Washington, gave the draft guidance a mixed review. “The FDA’s draft includes the types of information that we had proposed to the FDA in recent months in our work with patient advocates and plastic surgeons,” she said. “However, it is not as informative as it should be in describing well-designed studies indicating a risk of systemic illnesses. Patients deserve to make better-informed decisions in the future than most women considering breast implants have been able to make” in the past.
Patricia McGuire, MD, a St. Louis plastic surgeon who specializes in breast surgery and has studied breast implant illness, declared the guidance to be “reasonable.”
“I think the changes address the concerns expressed by patients during the [March] hearing; I agree with everything the FDA proposed in the guidance document,” Dr. McGuire said. “The boxed warning is reasonable and needs to be part of the informed consent process. I also agree with the changes in screening implants postoperatively. Most patients do not get MRI examinations. High-resolution ultrasound is more convenient and cost effective.”
The boxed warning was rated as “reasonably strong” and “the most serious step the FDA can take short of taking a device off the market,” but in the case of breast implants, a wider recall of textured implants than what the FDA arranged last July would be even more appropriate, commented Sidney M. Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen. He also faulted the agency for not taking quicker action in mandating inclusion of the proposed boxed warning.
Issuing the labeling changes as draft guidance “is a ministep forward,” but also a process that “guarantees delay” and “creeps along at a dangerously slow pace,” Dr. Wolfe said. “The FDA is delaying what should be inevitable. The agency could put the boxed warning in place right now if they had the guts to do it.”
Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Allergan, Establishment Labs, and Hans Biomed. Ms. Cook, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Wolfe reported having no commercial disclosures.
ACIP approves 2020 adult vaccination schedule
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the adult immunization schedule for 2020, although some fine-tuning may occur before publication.
“Some of the wordsmithing may be done later,” ACIP executive secretary Amanda Cohn, MD, said at the ACIP October meeting.
Key updates to the schedule included a change in wording for the definition of the red bars on the table to include “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of only the word “contraindicated.” Committee members were especially interested in changing this wording to guide clinicians in use of the live attenuated influenza vaccine because of its potential value in vaccinating health care personnel.
Other updates include language that vaccination of adolescents and young adults aged 16-23 years who are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease should be vaccinated as follows: “Based on shared clinical decision making, 2-dose series MenB-4C at least 1 month apart or 2-dose series MenB-FHbp at 0, 6 months.”
Similarly, clinical decision-making language was added to the notes for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13).
The routine vaccination calls for only one dose of PPSV23 given on or after the individual’s 65th birthday. Then, based on shared clinical decision making, a dose of PCV13 is recommended for immunocompetent individuals aged 65 years and older. The notes also state that, based on shared clinical decision making, PCV13 and PPSV23 should not be given in the same visit and, if both will be given, PCV13 should be first and should be given 1 year before PPSV23. In addition, “PPSV23 should be given at least 5 years after any previous PPSV23 dose.”
The schedule also adds shared clinical decision making to the notes on human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 27-45 years.
The committee members acknowledged the increasing complexity of the adult vaccination schedule, but several members agreed that it is accessible to many clinicians.
“We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” said Jason Goldman, MD, liaison representing the American College of Physicians. “Those who want to learn the schedule will learn it; the health system will learn it,” even if not every specialist does.
The table “is something to draw you in,” said Sandra Fryhofer, MD, an internist who is liaison for the American Medical Association. The notes provide more details.
More specific information about contraindications for patients with cochlear implants, which also came up in the discussion, may be added to the schedule at a later date.
View the current adult vaccination schedule here.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the adult immunization schedule for 2020, although some fine-tuning may occur before publication.
“Some of the wordsmithing may be done later,” ACIP executive secretary Amanda Cohn, MD, said at the ACIP October meeting.
Key updates to the schedule included a change in wording for the definition of the red bars on the table to include “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of only the word “contraindicated.” Committee members were especially interested in changing this wording to guide clinicians in use of the live attenuated influenza vaccine because of its potential value in vaccinating health care personnel.
Other updates include language that vaccination of adolescents and young adults aged 16-23 years who are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease should be vaccinated as follows: “Based on shared clinical decision making, 2-dose series MenB-4C at least 1 month apart or 2-dose series MenB-FHbp at 0, 6 months.”
Similarly, clinical decision-making language was added to the notes for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13).
The routine vaccination calls for only one dose of PPSV23 given on or after the individual’s 65th birthday. Then, based on shared clinical decision making, a dose of PCV13 is recommended for immunocompetent individuals aged 65 years and older. The notes also state that, based on shared clinical decision making, PCV13 and PPSV23 should not be given in the same visit and, if both will be given, PCV13 should be first and should be given 1 year before PPSV23. In addition, “PPSV23 should be given at least 5 years after any previous PPSV23 dose.”
The schedule also adds shared clinical decision making to the notes on human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 27-45 years.
The committee members acknowledged the increasing complexity of the adult vaccination schedule, but several members agreed that it is accessible to many clinicians.
“We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” said Jason Goldman, MD, liaison representing the American College of Physicians. “Those who want to learn the schedule will learn it; the health system will learn it,” even if not every specialist does.
The table “is something to draw you in,” said Sandra Fryhofer, MD, an internist who is liaison for the American Medical Association. The notes provide more details.
More specific information about contraindications for patients with cochlear implants, which also came up in the discussion, may be added to the schedule at a later date.
View the current adult vaccination schedule here.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the adult immunization schedule for 2020, although some fine-tuning may occur before publication.
“Some of the wordsmithing may be done later,” ACIP executive secretary Amanda Cohn, MD, said at the ACIP October meeting.
Key updates to the schedule included a change in wording for the definition of the red bars on the table to include “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of only the word “contraindicated.” Committee members were especially interested in changing this wording to guide clinicians in use of the live attenuated influenza vaccine because of its potential value in vaccinating health care personnel.
Other updates include language that vaccination of adolescents and young adults aged 16-23 years who are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease should be vaccinated as follows: “Based on shared clinical decision making, 2-dose series MenB-4C at least 1 month apart or 2-dose series MenB-FHbp at 0, 6 months.”
Similarly, clinical decision-making language was added to the notes for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13).
The routine vaccination calls for only one dose of PPSV23 given on or after the individual’s 65th birthday. Then, based on shared clinical decision making, a dose of PCV13 is recommended for immunocompetent individuals aged 65 years and older. The notes also state that, based on shared clinical decision making, PCV13 and PPSV23 should not be given in the same visit and, if both will be given, PCV13 should be first and should be given 1 year before PPSV23. In addition, “PPSV23 should be given at least 5 years after any previous PPSV23 dose.”
The schedule also adds shared clinical decision making to the notes on human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 27-45 years.
The committee members acknowledged the increasing complexity of the adult vaccination schedule, but several members agreed that it is accessible to many clinicians.
“We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” said Jason Goldman, MD, liaison representing the American College of Physicians. “Those who want to learn the schedule will learn it; the health system will learn it,” even if not every specialist does.
The table “is something to draw you in,” said Sandra Fryhofer, MD, an internist who is liaison for the American Medical Association. The notes provide more details.
More specific information about contraindications for patients with cochlear implants, which also came up in the discussion, may be added to the schedule at a later date.
View the current adult vaccination schedule here.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
ACIP plans flu review for older adults
according to data presented at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s ACIP.
Lynette Brammer of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) presented a surveillance update of the flu season in the United States so far. Overall, the influenza A(H3N2) viruses are predominant, although dominance varies in different regions of the country, and it is too soon to predict what strain will dominate later in the season.
“While two of the four vaccine components were updated for the Southern Hemisphere, the components selected for the 2019-2020 Northern Hemisphere vaccine, at this time, look appropriate for the season,” she said.
In other flu news, Lisa Groskopf, MD, of the NCIRD discussed the influenza work group’s plans for a meta-analysis to assess the relative benefit of different vaccines for older adults, in light of the growing variety of products available.
Currently, no preferential recommendations have been made for a specific vaccine for a particular age group. “There’s a dearth of data comparing these vaccines to one another,” said Dr. Groskopf. She added that, because vaccine effectiveness varies by season, the generalizability of effectiveness data is another challenge.
The work group’s systematic review and meta-analysis is designed to compare the high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV), the adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV), and the recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV). The study will include adults aged 65 years and older who receive trivalent or quadrivalent HD-IIV, aIIV, or RIV, compared with those who receive another influenza vaccine, a noninfluenza control vaccine, placebo, or no vaccine. The outcomes will include data on safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, Dr. Groskopf said.
In addition to safety and effectiveness, manufacturers such as Sanofi Pasteur continue to collect data on the success of available vaccines and develop new ones. Lee-Jah Chang, MD, of Sanofi Pasteur presented results of a noninferiority study of the company’s investigational high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD; including two prevailing B viruses) versus the high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (TID-HD). The study was conducted at 35 sites in the United States and included 2,670 adults aged 65 years and older.
Overall, the reactogenicity profile for patients given QIV-HD was similar to that of TID-HD, and approximately 5% of patients in the QIV group reported an immediate adverse event, Dr. Chang said. However, no related deaths or related adverse events of special interest occurred in any of the study groups.
Sanofi plans to pursue licensure of the QIV-HD vaccine, with a Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research action date of Nov. 4, 2019, said Dr. Chang. If the vaccine is licensed, it should be available for purchase by health care providers in the first quarter of 2020.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
according to data presented at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s ACIP.
Lynette Brammer of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) presented a surveillance update of the flu season in the United States so far. Overall, the influenza A(H3N2) viruses are predominant, although dominance varies in different regions of the country, and it is too soon to predict what strain will dominate later in the season.
“While two of the four vaccine components were updated for the Southern Hemisphere, the components selected for the 2019-2020 Northern Hemisphere vaccine, at this time, look appropriate for the season,” she said.
In other flu news, Lisa Groskopf, MD, of the NCIRD discussed the influenza work group’s plans for a meta-analysis to assess the relative benefit of different vaccines for older adults, in light of the growing variety of products available.
Currently, no preferential recommendations have been made for a specific vaccine for a particular age group. “There’s a dearth of data comparing these vaccines to one another,” said Dr. Groskopf. She added that, because vaccine effectiveness varies by season, the generalizability of effectiveness data is another challenge.
The work group’s systematic review and meta-analysis is designed to compare the high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV), the adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV), and the recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV). The study will include adults aged 65 years and older who receive trivalent or quadrivalent HD-IIV, aIIV, or RIV, compared with those who receive another influenza vaccine, a noninfluenza control vaccine, placebo, or no vaccine. The outcomes will include data on safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, Dr. Groskopf said.
In addition to safety and effectiveness, manufacturers such as Sanofi Pasteur continue to collect data on the success of available vaccines and develop new ones. Lee-Jah Chang, MD, of Sanofi Pasteur presented results of a noninferiority study of the company’s investigational high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD; including two prevailing B viruses) versus the high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (TID-HD). The study was conducted at 35 sites in the United States and included 2,670 adults aged 65 years and older.
Overall, the reactogenicity profile for patients given QIV-HD was similar to that of TID-HD, and approximately 5% of patients in the QIV group reported an immediate adverse event, Dr. Chang said. However, no related deaths or related adverse events of special interest occurred in any of the study groups.
Sanofi plans to pursue licensure of the QIV-HD vaccine, with a Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research action date of Nov. 4, 2019, said Dr. Chang. If the vaccine is licensed, it should be available for purchase by health care providers in the first quarter of 2020.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
according to data presented at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s ACIP.
Lynette Brammer of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) presented a surveillance update of the flu season in the United States so far. Overall, the influenza A(H3N2) viruses are predominant, although dominance varies in different regions of the country, and it is too soon to predict what strain will dominate later in the season.
“While two of the four vaccine components were updated for the Southern Hemisphere, the components selected for the 2019-2020 Northern Hemisphere vaccine, at this time, look appropriate for the season,” she said.
In other flu news, Lisa Groskopf, MD, of the NCIRD discussed the influenza work group’s plans for a meta-analysis to assess the relative benefit of different vaccines for older adults, in light of the growing variety of products available.
Currently, no preferential recommendations have been made for a specific vaccine for a particular age group. “There’s a dearth of data comparing these vaccines to one another,” said Dr. Groskopf. She added that, because vaccine effectiveness varies by season, the generalizability of effectiveness data is another challenge.
The work group’s systematic review and meta-analysis is designed to compare the high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV), the adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV), and the recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV). The study will include adults aged 65 years and older who receive trivalent or quadrivalent HD-IIV, aIIV, or RIV, compared with those who receive another influenza vaccine, a noninfluenza control vaccine, placebo, or no vaccine. The outcomes will include data on safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, Dr. Groskopf said.
In addition to safety and effectiveness, manufacturers such as Sanofi Pasteur continue to collect data on the success of available vaccines and develop new ones. Lee-Jah Chang, MD, of Sanofi Pasteur presented results of a noninferiority study of the company’s investigational high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD; including two prevailing B viruses) versus the high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (TID-HD). The study was conducted at 35 sites in the United States and included 2,670 adults aged 65 years and older.
Overall, the reactogenicity profile for patients given QIV-HD was similar to that of TID-HD, and approximately 5% of patients in the QIV group reported an immediate adverse event, Dr. Chang said. However, no related deaths or related adverse events of special interest occurred in any of the study groups.
Sanofi plans to pursue licensure of the QIV-HD vaccine, with a Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research action date of Nov. 4, 2019, said Dr. Chang. If the vaccine is licensed, it should be available for purchase by health care providers in the first quarter of 2020.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
REPORTING FROM AN ACIP MEETING
ACIP recommends two options for pertussis vaccination
Either the Tdap or Td vaccine is an acceptable option for pertussis vaccination in most situations, recommended the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
In a unanimous 14-0 vote at the October meeting, based on the immunization schedule for persons aged 7 years and older.
Safety data showed no differences in safety concerns between Tdap and Td, including data from pregnant women, said Fiona Havers, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Atlanta.
Several of the ACIP members noted that the revised language to include both Tdap and Td reflects the increased use of Tdap and allows for maximum flexibility in clinical settings.
The revised language advises that booster doses of “either Td or Tdap” every 10 years throughout life are recommended for continued protection against tetanus and diphtheria. In addition, either Td or Tdap should be used if a tetanus toxoid–containing vaccine is indicated for prophylaxis in nonpregnant individuals.
For catch-up recommendations, which also apply to pregnant women, the committee approved the following wording for a series of three doses for individuals aged 7-18 years and 19 years and older who have never been vaccinated, that “the preferred schedule is a dose of Tdap (preferably the first dose), followed by either Tdap or Td at least 4 weeks afterward and another dose of either Td or Tdap 6-12 months later.” Individuals in these same age groups who are not fully vaccinated should receive one dose of Tdap, and a dose of either Td or Tdap if additional doses are needed.
The committee also voted unanimously 14-0 to accept the updated wording for pertussis vaccination in the Vaccines for Children program.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Either the Tdap or Td vaccine is an acceptable option for pertussis vaccination in most situations, recommended the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
In a unanimous 14-0 vote at the October meeting, based on the immunization schedule for persons aged 7 years and older.
Safety data showed no differences in safety concerns between Tdap and Td, including data from pregnant women, said Fiona Havers, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Atlanta.
Several of the ACIP members noted that the revised language to include both Tdap and Td reflects the increased use of Tdap and allows for maximum flexibility in clinical settings.
The revised language advises that booster doses of “either Td or Tdap” every 10 years throughout life are recommended for continued protection against tetanus and diphtheria. In addition, either Td or Tdap should be used if a tetanus toxoid–containing vaccine is indicated for prophylaxis in nonpregnant individuals.
For catch-up recommendations, which also apply to pregnant women, the committee approved the following wording for a series of three doses for individuals aged 7-18 years and 19 years and older who have never been vaccinated, that “the preferred schedule is a dose of Tdap (preferably the first dose), followed by either Tdap or Td at least 4 weeks afterward and another dose of either Td or Tdap 6-12 months later.” Individuals in these same age groups who are not fully vaccinated should receive one dose of Tdap, and a dose of either Td or Tdap if additional doses are needed.
The committee also voted unanimously 14-0 to accept the updated wording for pertussis vaccination in the Vaccines for Children program.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Either the Tdap or Td vaccine is an acceptable option for pertussis vaccination in most situations, recommended the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
In a unanimous 14-0 vote at the October meeting, based on the immunization schedule for persons aged 7 years and older.
Safety data showed no differences in safety concerns between Tdap and Td, including data from pregnant women, said Fiona Havers, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Atlanta.
Several of the ACIP members noted that the revised language to include both Tdap and Td reflects the increased use of Tdap and allows for maximum flexibility in clinical settings.
The revised language advises that booster doses of “either Td or Tdap” every 10 years throughout life are recommended for continued protection against tetanus and diphtheria. In addition, either Td or Tdap should be used if a tetanus toxoid–containing vaccine is indicated for prophylaxis in nonpregnant individuals.
For catch-up recommendations, which also apply to pregnant women, the committee approved the following wording for a series of three doses for individuals aged 7-18 years and 19 years and older who have never been vaccinated, that “the preferred schedule is a dose of Tdap (preferably the first dose), followed by either Tdap or Td at least 4 weeks afterward and another dose of either Td or Tdap 6-12 months later.” Individuals in these same age groups who are not fully vaccinated should receive one dose of Tdap, and a dose of either Td or Tdap if additional doses are needed.
The committee also voted unanimously 14-0 to accept the updated wording for pertussis vaccination in the Vaccines for Children program.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM AN ACIP MEETING
FDA approves minocycline foam for moderate, severe acne
The Food and Drug Administration has vulgaris in adults and pediatric patients aged at least 9 years.
FDA approval was based on three phase 3, 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled studies of patients with moderate to severe acne vulgaris who were treated once daily with minocycline 4% plus vehicle or vehicle alone, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Foamix Pharmaceuticals. In all three studies, patients receiving minocycline had a reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions, compared with vehicle alone; in two studies, patients in the minocycline groups had significantly improved Investigator’s Global Assessment scores.
The most commonly reported adverse event reported during the trials was headache. No serious adverse events were reported. The company says it is expected to be available in January 2020.
Find the prescribing information on the FDA website.
The Food and Drug Administration has vulgaris in adults and pediatric patients aged at least 9 years.
FDA approval was based on three phase 3, 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled studies of patients with moderate to severe acne vulgaris who were treated once daily with minocycline 4% plus vehicle or vehicle alone, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Foamix Pharmaceuticals. In all three studies, patients receiving minocycline had a reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions, compared with vehicle alone; in two studies, patients in the minocycline groups had significantly improved Investigator’s Global Assessment scores.
The most commonly reported adverse event reported during the trials was headache. No serious adverse events were reported. The company says it is expected to be available in January 2020.
Find the prescribing information on the FDA website.
The Food and Drug Administration has vulgaris in adults and pediatric patients aged at least 9 years.
FDA approval was based on three phase 3, 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled studies of patients with moderate to severe acne vulgaris who were treated once daily with minocycline 4% plus vehicle or vehicle alone, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Foamix Pharmaceuticals. In all three studies, patients receiving minocycline had a reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions, compared with vehicle alone; in two studies, patients in the minocycline groups had significantly improved Investigator’s Global Assessment scores.
The most commonly reported adverse event reported during the trials was headache. No serious adverse events were reported. The company says it is expected to be available in January 2020.
Find the prescribing information on the FDA website.
FDA approves Trikafta for treatment of cystic fibrosis
in patients aged 12 years or older, the first triple-combination therapy approved for that indication.
Approval for Trikafta was based on results from two clinical trials in patients with cystic fibrosis with an F508del mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene. In the first trial, a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 403 patients, the mean percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second increased by 14% from baseline, compared with placebo. In the second trial, a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study of 107 patients, mean percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second was increased 10% from baseline, compared with tezacaftor/ivacaftor, according to the FDA press release.
In the first trial, patients who received Trikafta also saw improvement in sweat chloride, reduction in the number of pulmonary exacerbations, and reduction of body mass index, compared with placebo.
The most common adverse events associated with Trikafta during the trials were headaches, upper respiratory tract infections, abdominal pains, diarrhea, rashes, and rhinorrhea, among others. The label includes a warning related to elevated liver function tests, use at the same time with products that induce or inhibit a liver enzyme called cytochrome P450 3A4, and cataract risk.
“At the FDA, we’re consistently looking for ways to help speed the development of new therapies for complex diseases, while maintaining our high standards of review. Today’s landmark approval is a testament to these efforts, making a novel treatment available to most cystic fibrosis patients, including adolescents, who previously had no options and giving others in the cystic fibrosis community access to an additional effective therapy,” said acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless, MD.
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
in patients aged 12 years or older, the first triple-combination therapy approved for that indication.
Approval for Trikafta was based on results from two clinical trials in patients with cystic fibrosis with an F508del mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene. In the first trial, a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 403 patients, the mean percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second increased by 14% from baseline, compared with placebo. In the second trial, a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study of 107 patients, mean percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second was increased 10% from baseline, compared with tezacaftor/ivacaftor, according to the FDA press release.
In the first trial, patients who received Trikafta also saw improvement in sweat chloride, reduction in the number of pulmonary exacerbations, and reduction of body mass index, compared with placebo.
The most common adverse events associated with Trikafta during the trials were headaches, upper respiratory tract infections, abdominal pains, diarrhea, rashes, and rhinorrhea, among others. The label includes a warning related to elevated liver function tests, use at the same time with products that induce or inhibit a liver enzyme called cytochrome P450 3A4, and cataract risk.
“At the FDA, we’re consistently looking for ways to help speed the development of new therapies for complex diseases, while maintaining our high standards of review. Today’s landmark approval is a testament to these efforts, making a novel treatment available to most cystic fibrosis patients, including adolescents, who previously had no options and giving others in the cystic fibrosis community access to an additional effective therapy,” said acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless, MD.
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
in patients aged 12 years or older, the first triple-combination therapy approved for that indication.
Approval for Trikafta was based on results from two clinical trials in patients with cystic fibrosis with an F508del mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene. In the first trial, a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 403 patients, the mean percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second increased by 14% from baseline, compared with placebo. In the second trial, a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study of 107 patients, mean percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second was increased 10% from baseline, compared with tezacaftor/ivacaftor, according to the FDA press release.
In the first trial, patients who received Trikafta also saw improvement in sweat chloride, reduction in the number of pulmonary exacerbations, and reduction of body mass index, compared with placebo.
The most common adverse events associated with Trikafta during the trials were headaches, upper respiratory tract infections, abdominal pains, diarrhea, rashes, and rhinorrhea, among others. The label includes a warning related to elevated liver function tests, use at the same time with products that induce or inhibit a liver enzyme called cytochrome P450 3A4, and cataract risk.
“At the FDA, we’re consistently looking for ways to help speed the development of new therapies for complex diseases, while maintaining our high standards of review. Today’s landmark approval is a testament to these efforts, making a novel treatment available to most cystic fibrosis patients, including adolescents, who previously had no options and giving others in the cystic fibrosis community access to an additional effective therapy,” said acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless, MD.
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
Dapagliflozin approved for reducing HF hospitalization in diabetes
The Food And Drug Administration has approved the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, according to a statement from AstraZeneca.
The approval was based on results from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcomes trial, which evaluated dapagliflozin in more than 17,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease. They showed that dapagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure by 27%, compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.88).
The drug is an oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor initially approved as a monotherapy or combination therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It has additional benefits of weight loss and reduction in blood pressure in concert with diet and exercise in the same population.
“,” Ruud Dobber, PhD, executive vice president of the company’s biopharmaceuticals business unit, said in the statement. “This is promising news for the 30 million people living with type 2 diabetes in the U.S., as heart failure is one of the earliest cardiovascular complications for them, before heart attack or stroke. [Dapagliflozin] now offers the opportunity for physicians to act sooner and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”
In September, the agency granted dapagliflozin a Fast Track designation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, or the worsening of heart failure in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction, based on the phase 3 DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. It also gave the drug Fast Track designation to delay the progression of renal failure and prevent CV and renal death in patients with chronic kidney disease based on the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial, the statement noted.
The Food And Drug Administration has approved the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, according to a statement from AstraZeneca.
The approval was based on results from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcomes trial, which evaluated dapagliflozin in more than 17,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease. They showed that dapagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure by 27%, compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.88).
The drug is an oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor initially approved as a monotherapy or combination therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It has additional benefits of weight loss and reduction in blood pressure in concert with diet and exercise in the same population.
“,” Ruud Dobber, PhD, executive vice president of the company’s biopharmaceuticals business unit, said in the statement. “This is promising news for the 30 million people living with type 2 diabetes in the U.S., as heart failure is one of the earliest cardiovascular complications for them, before heart attack or stroke. [Dapagliflozin] now offers the opportunity for physicians to act sooner and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”
In September, the agency granted dapagliflozin a Fast Track designation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, or the worsening of heart failure in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction, based on the phase 3 DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. It also gave the drug Fast Track designation to delay the progression of renal failure and prevent CV and renal death in patients with chronic kidney disease based on the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial, the statement noted.
The Food And Drug Administration has approved the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, according to a statement from AstraZeneca.
The approval was based on results from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcomes trial, which evaluated dapagliflozin in more than 17,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease. They showed that dapagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure by 27%, compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.88).
The drug is an oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor initially approved as a monotherapy or combination therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It has additional benefits of weight loss and reduction in blood pressure in concert with diet and exercise in the same population.
“,” Ruud Dobber, PhD, executive vice president of the company’s biopharmaceuticals business unit, said in the statement. “This is promising news for the 30 million people living with type 2 diabetes in the U.S., as heart failure is one of the earliest cardiovascular complications for them, before heart attack or stroke. [Dapagliflozin] now offers the opportunity for physicians to act sooner and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”
In September, the agency granted dapagliflozin a Fast Track designation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, or the worsening of heart failure in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction, based on the phase 3 DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. It also gave the drug Fast Track designation to delay the progression of renal failure and prevent CV and renal death in patients with chronic kidney disease based on the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial, the statement noted.
FDA approves ustekinumab for ulcerative colitis
. This is the human interleukin-12 and IL-23 antagonist’s fourth indication since it was first approved by the FDA in 2009.
The approval is based on findings from the phase 3 UNIFI clinical trial, which achieved its primary endpoint of clinical remission over the course of both induction and maintenance. The 8-week induction study saw 19% of patients achieve clinical remission and 58% demonstrating clinical response; at the 1 year mark, after 44 weeks of maintenance therapy, 43% of patients were in clinical remission without steroids. The trial also assessed a novel histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement endpoint that examined cellular improvement through both histologic examination and images observed during colonoscopy; 17% of treated patients achieved this endpoint at week 8, and 44% had by 1 year.
“The FDA approval of Stelara for [ulcerative colitis] represents an exciting milestone, offering patients a new option that has demonstrated improvement of the histology and endoscopic appearance of the intestinal lining, while also offering patients the potential for response and remission without the need for steroids,” said William J. Sandborn, MD, chief of the division of gastroenterology and professor of medicine at University of California, San Diego, and a study investigator.
Because of ustekinumab’s effects on the immune system, it may increase the risk of serious infection; as such, patients and health care professionals should discuss any signs of infection before initiation and continue discussions afterward. There are also concerns about risks of cancers, serious allergic reactions, and lung inflammation.
Full prescribing information is available on the Janssen website, as is the full press release regarding the approval
. This is the human interleukin-12 and IL-23 antagonist’s fourth indication since it was first approved by the FDA in 2009.
The approval is based on findings from the phase 3 UNIFI clinical trial, which achieved its primary endpoint of clinical remission over the course of both induction and maintenance. The 8-week induction study saw 19% of patients achieve clinical remission and 58% demonstrating clinical response; at the 1 year mark, after 44 weeks of maintenance therapy, 43% of patients were in clinical remission without steroids. The trial also assessed a novel histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement endpoint that examined cellular improvement through both histologic examination and images observed during colonoscopy; 17% of treated patients achieved this endpoint at week 8, and 44% had by 1 year.
“The FDA approval of Stelara for [ulcerative colitis] represents an exciting milestone, offering patients a new option that has demonstrated improvement of the histology and endoscopic appearance of the intestinal lining, while also offering patients the potential for response and remission without the need for steroids,” said William J. Sandborn, MD, chief of the division of gastroenterology and professor of medicine at University of California, San Diego, and a study investigator.
Because of ustekinumab’s effects on the immune system, it may increase the risk of serious infection; as such, patients and health care professionals should discuss any signs of infection before initiation and continue discussions afterward. There are also concerns about risks of cancers, serious allergic reactions, and lung inflammation.
Full prescribing information is available on the Janssen website, as is the full press release regarding the approval
. This is the human interleukin-12 and IL-23 antagonist’s fourth indication since it was first approved by the FDA in 2009.
The approval is based on findings from the phase 3 UNIFI clinical trial, which achieved its primary endpoint of clinical remission over the course of both induction and maintenance. The 8-week induction study saw 19% of patients achieve clinical remission and 58% demonstrating clinical response; at the 1 year mark, after 44 weeks of maintenance therapy, 43% of patients were in clinical remission without steroids. The trial also assessed a novel histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement endpoint that examined cellular improvement through both histologic examination and images observed during colonoscopy; 17% of treated patients achieved this endpoint at week 8, and 44% had by 1 year.
“The FDA approval of Stelara for [ulcerative colitis] represents an exciting milestone, offering patients a new option that has demonstrated improvement of the histology and endoscopic appearance of the intestinal lining, while also offering patients the potential for response and remission without the need for steroids,” said William J. Sandborn, MD, chief of the division of gastroenterology and professor of medicine at University of California, San Diego, and a study investigator.
Because of ustekinumab’s effects on the immune system, it may increase the risk of serious infection; as such, patients and health care professionals should discuss any signs of infection before initiation and continue discussions afterward. There are also concerns about risks of cancers, serious allergic reactions, and lung inflammation.
Full prescribing information is available on the Janssen website, as is the full press release regarding the approval