All posts by CPTFadmin

These machines to help people breathe were recalled a year ago. Many still use them

In the News, News Stories & Editorials, We're In the News

Emily Alpert Reyes, Los Angeles Times: June 23, 2022

In Rochester, N.Y., Diane Coleman has relied on a machine to help her stay alive, but she worries that it might be slowly undermining her health.

Her ventilator was among millions of breathing devices that Philips Respironics recalled last summer over safety concerns about numerous models of its ventilators, BiPAP and CPAP machines.

The reason: Polyester-based polyurethane foam used to muffle noise in those machines could degrade, giving off chemical gases and bits of black debris that could be swallowed or inhaled.

The possible risks: headaches, dizziness, nausea, irritated eyes and airways, and “toxic or cancer-causing effects,” according to federal regulators. The Food and Drug Administration put the recall in its most serious category, involving “a reasonable probability” that a product “will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”

Yet a year later, many patients are still awaiting replacements — and some are using the recalled machines despite those possible risks.

Coleman said her machine underwent some initial repairs, but she is seeking a new one after federal regulators sought more safety testing of the replacement foam used for such fixes. The 68-year-old, who is president and chief executive of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet, has a form of muscular dystrophy and uses her ventilator roughly 22 hours each day.

She is nervous about how it could affect her, but “it’s not like I can stop using it.”

[….]

The devices are commonly used to treat sleep apnea, a disorder in which breathing is repeatedly interrupted during sleep, which can increase the risk of heart problems and leave people dangerously drowsy during the day. The FDA has advised patients who use the recalled CPAP or BiPAP machines to talk to their doctors about whether to stop.

Tom Wilson, who administers a Facebook support group for CPAP users affected by the recall, said he has read comments from group members who say they haven’t had any communication with Philips despite registering their devices with the company as much as a year ago. Some have paid out of pocket to get other devices.

[….]

“They’ve botched the whole thing,” said Dena Young, senior counsel at Berger Montague, who said that most of the people represented by her firm had not gotten a replacement or repair. As they wait, “some of them are still using the Philips because they don’t have a choice.”

Federal investigators have also taken interest: In April, Philips said the U.S. Department of Justice had subpoenaed the company in regards to events leading to the recall.

Consumer safety advocates argue that the halting process underscores the shortcomings of the recall system, which relies heavily on private companies to inform consumers and take action.

“It isn’t actually easy for the FDA to take products off the market,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, a nonprofit research center that has raised concerns about the safety of medical products. “It should be a lot easier than it is.”

But the actions that the FDA has taken so far in the Philips recall also show that the agency “has more power in recalls than they usually use,” Zuckerman said.

The FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health told Philips last month that it was seeking to order the company to turn in a plan that could include not only repairing and replacing the recalled devices, but also providing refunds. In a November report, an FDA investigator found that Philips had failed to start taking appropriate action years earlier when the company first became aware the foam could be breaking down. Emails showed that the company was aware of “foam degradation issues” as early as October 2015, the FDA investigator found.

Within three years, more emails indicated that Philips had gotten more complaints about crumbling foam in ventilators and said that testing had confirmed that it broke down in high heat and high humidity, but the firm “made the decision not to change the design,” according to the FDA report in November. The FDA investigator noted that dating to 2008, Philips had gotten more than 222,000 consumer complaints that included keywords such as “contaminants, particles, foam, debris, airway, particulate, airpath and black.”

[….]

This year, the FDA found that Philips’ efforts to alert patients were insufficient, concluding that many patients were probably still unaware of the health risks nine months after the recall had begun. In March, it ordered the company to notify health professionals, device distributors and users of the recalled machines after estimating that only 50% of patients and consumers who had gotten recalled CPAPs and BiPAPs within the last five years had registered with the company for a replacement.

[….]

In Philadelphia, Meghann Luczkowski likewise worried about what would happen if Miles, her 8-year-old son, were switched to a different ventilator. Miles has a rare form of dwarfism that causes a “floppy airway” that needs to be reopened with mechanical ventilation. He had briefly been put on a different ventilator in the past but couldn’t maintain safe levels of oxygen and suffered “blue spells” in which his skin changed color.

His Philips machine has been “his lifeline,” allowing him to live at home with his family. But Luczkowski said they had begun noticing black buildup when they changed a filter in the machine.

“It’s a very scary thing to hear that the machine that keeps your child alive could suddenly be the thing that’s harming them,” Luczkowski said.

[….]

Concerns have continued to mount. From April 2021 through April 2022, federal regulators have gotten more than 21,000 reports about medical issues potentially tied to the recalled devices — or malfunctions likely to cause injuries if they recurred — including 124 reports linking them to deaths. Cancer has been a stated concern: Since 2020, more than 1,100 such reports about Philips CPAP or BiPAP machines have included the words “cancer,” “tumor” or “tumour,” said Madris Kinard, chief executive of Device Events, which gathers data to track problems with medical devices.

Those medical device reports, which can be submitted by health professionals and patients as well as manufacturers, do not require verification that the device caused the injury or death; Philips stressed that submitting such reports “is not evidence that the device caused or contributed to the adverse outcome or event.”

However, Zuckerman said “it’s assumed that a lot of deaths and other serious injuries don’t get reported at all.”

In La Quinta, Matthew P. Stone counts himself as relatively lucky. The 61-year-old, who had been using a Philips CPAP machine for sleep apnea, had been able to fall back on an old device from another manufacturer.

But Stone, like others, has been galled by the way the recall has played out. At one point, Stone said, he tried to lodge a complaint with federal regulators and was referred to a Southern California number that kept cutting out before he could leave a message.

“I am so incredibly disappointed,” he said, “at the lack of advocacy by anybody involved.”

To read the entire article, click here.

These machines to help people breathe were recalled a year ago. Many still use them

Uncategorized

Emily Alpert Reyes, Los Angeles Times, June 23, 2022

In Rochester, N.Y., Diane Coleman has relied on a machine to help her stay alive, but she worries that it might be slowly undermining her health.

Her ventilator was among millions of breathing devices that Philips Respironics recalled last summer over safety concerns about numerous models of its ventilators, BiPAP and CPAP machines.

The reason: Polyester-based polyurethane foam used to muffle noise in those machines could degrade, giving off chemical gases and bits of black debris that could be swallowed or inhaled.

The possible risks: headaches, dizziness, nausea, irritated eyes and airways, and “toxic or cancer-causing effects,” according to federal regulators. The Food and Drug Administration put the recall in its most serious category, involving “a reasonable probability” that a product “will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”

Yet a year later, many patients are still awaiting replacements — and some are using the recalled machines despite those possible risks.

Coleman said her machine underwent some initial repairs, but she is seeking a new one after federal regulators sought more safety testing of the replacement foam used for such fixes. The 68-year-old, who is president and chief executive of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet, has a form of muscular dystrophy and uses her ventilator roughly 22 hours each day.

She is nervous about how it could affect her, but “it’s not like I can stop using it.”

[….]

The devices are commonly used to treat sleep apnea, a disorder in which breathing is repeatedly interrupted during sleep, which can increase the risk of heart problems and leave people dangerously drowsy during the day. The FDA has advised patients who use the recalled CPAP or BiPAP machines to talk to their doctors about whether to stop.

Tom Wilson, who administers a Facebook support group for CPAP users affected by the recall, said he has read comments from group members who say they haven’t had any communication with Philips despite registering their devices with the company as much as a year ago. Some have paid out of pocket to get other devices.

[….]

“They’ve botched the whole thing,” said Dena Young, senior counsel at Berger Montague, who said that most of the people represented by her firm had not gotten a replacement or repair. As they wait, “some of them are still using the Philips because they don’t have a choice.”

Federal investigators have also taken interest: In April, Philips said the U.S. Department of Justice had subpoenaed the company in regards to events leading to the recall.

Consumer safety advocates argue that the halting process underscores the shortcomings of the recall system, which relies heavily on private companies to inform consumers and take action.

“It isn’t actually easy for the FDA to take products off the market,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, a nonprofit research center that has raised concerns about the safety of medical products. “It should be a lot easier than it is.”

But the actions that the FDA has taken so far in the Philips recall also show that the agency “has more power in recalls than they usually use,” Zuckerman said.

The FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health told Philips last month that it was seeking to order the company to turn in a plan that could include not only repairing and replacing the recalled devices, but also providing refunds. In a November report, an FDA investigator found that Philips had failed to start taking appropriate action years earlier when the company first became aware the foam could be breaking down. Emails showed that the company was aware of “foam degradation issues” as early as October 2015, the FDA investigator found.

Within three years, more emails indicated that Philips had gotten more complaints about crumbling foam in ventilators and said that testing had confirmed that it broke down in high heat and high humidity, but the firm “made the decision not to change the design,” according to the FDA report in November. The FDA investigator noted that dating to 2008, Philips had gotten more than 222,000 consumer complaints that included keywords such as “contaminants, particles, foam, debris, airway, particulate, airpath and black.”

[….]

This year, the FDA found that Philips’ efforts to alert patients were insufficient, concluding that many patients were probably still unaware of the health risks nine months after the recall had begun. In March, it ordered the company to notify health professionals, device distributors and users of the recalled machines after estimating that only 50% of patients and consumers who had gotten recalled CPAPs and BiPAPs within the last five years had registered with the company for a replacement.

[….]

In Philadelphia, Meghann Luczkowski likewise worried about what would happen if Miles, her 8-year-old son, were switched to a different ventilator. Miles has a rare form of dwarfism that causes a “floppy airway” that needs to be reopened with mechanical ventilation. He had briefly been put on a different ventilator in the past but couldn’t maintain safe levels of oxygen and suffered “blue spells” in which his skin changed color.

His Philips machine has been “his lifeline,” allowing him to live at home with his family. But Luczkowski said they had begun noticing black buildup when they changed a filter in the machine.

“It’s a very scary thing to hear that the machine that keeps your child alive could suddenly be the thing that’s harming them,” Luczkowski said.

[….]

Concerns have continued to mount. From April 2021 through April 2022, federal regulators have gotten more than 21,000 reports about medical issues potentially tied to the recalled devices — or malfunctions likely to cause injuries if they recurred — including 124 reports linking them to deaths. Cancer has been a stated concern: Since 2020, more than 1,100 such reports about Philips CPAP or BiPAP machines have included the words “cancer,” “tumor” or “tumour,” said Madris Kinard, chief executive of Device Events, which gathers data to track problems with medical devices.

Those medical device reports, which can be submitted by health professionals and patients as well as manufacturers, do not require verification that the device caused the injury or death; Philips stressed that submitting such reports “is not evidence that the device caused or contributed to the adverse outcome or event.”

However, Zuckerman said “it’s assumed that a lot of deaths and other serious injuries don’t get reported at all.”

In La Quinta, Matthew P. Stone counts himself as relatively lucky. The 61-year-old, who had been using a Philips CPAP machine for sleep apnea, had been able to fall back on an old device from another manufacturer.

But Stone, like others, has been galled by the way the recall has played out. At one point, Stone said, he tried to lodge a complaint with federal regulators and was referred to a Southern California number that kept cutting out before he could leave a message.

“I am so incredibly disappointed,” he said, “at the lack of advocacy by anybody involved.”

To read the entire article, click here.

Who Should You Believe? A critique of the Aesthetic Society’s view of Breast Implant Illness

Testimony & Briefings, Uncategorized

By Diana Zuckerman, PhD.

An article entitled “A Practical Guide to Managing Patients With Systemic Symptoms and Breast Implants” was published in the  Aesthetic Surgery Journal, (Volume 42, Issue 4, April 2022, Pages 397–407). This is a journal of the Aesthetic Society, which is the second largest association of plastic surgeons.  The authors are Patricia McGuire, MD, Daniel J Clauw, MD, Jason Hammer, MD, Melinda Haws, MD, and William P Adams, Jr, MD

There are many outrageous articles denying the existence of breast implant illness, but this may be the worst since it was published after major studies documented that breast implant illness exists.  The authors are prominent plastic surgeons who are members of the Aesthetic Society and/or the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), which are the two major associations for plastic surgeons.  All but one of the authors have financial ties to companies that make breast implants.

The theme of the article is clearly stated in the summary: “Numerous studies have explored the possibility of an association between breast implants and systemic symptoms potentially linked to exposure to silicone. Some studies show no direct association whereas others provide insufficient scientific evidence to prove or disprove an association. Nonetheless, some patients with breast implants remain concerned about the possible role of their implants in systemic symptoms they may be experiencing. This paper provides a practical approach for plastic surgeons in managing patients with breast implants who present with systemic symptoms, including recommendations for patient counseling, clinical and laboratory assessment of symptoms, and/or referral. Integral components of patient counseling include listening attentively, providing unbiased information, and discussing the risks and benefits of options for evaluation and treatment.”

In reality, there are numerous studies in major medical journals that show a “direct association” between breast implant illness and diagnosed diseases with similar symptoms.  But the plastic surgeons who wrote the article are saying there is no evidence.  They are also saying that since patients mistakenly think BII is real, surgeons should assure them that although BII it is not proven, research is underway to study the issue.  That gaslighting is intended to show the patients that their surgeon is open-minded.

You might ask what is the evidence that the authors use to conclude that BII is not real?  To me as a researcher, this is the most mind-boggling part.  In addition to misquoting a 22-year old report from the Institute of Medicine – a report that is extremely outdated — and including a few individual case studies that just happen to all illustrate the authors’ view that breast implant illness isn’t real — the authors made several major errors:

#1.  They state that “In 2019, an FDA advisory panel on breast implant safety determined that there is currently insufficient evidence of a causal relationship between breast implants and the diagnosis of rheumatologic disease or [connective tissue disease].” They footnote this statement with a document that was written by the FDA before the FDA advisory panel met in 2019 and which did not draw any such conclusions.

#2. They state that “a number of epidemiological studies taken together are felt by many experts in the field to represent convincing evidence that there is no link between SBIs and auto-immune diseases.” The authors support that statement by listing 9 articles that they do not discuss. Almost all of the articles were funded by implant manufacturers and/or plastic surgeons, and 3 were published more than 20 years ago, based on poorly designed studies. One study was described as a study of 55,000 women, but in reality a large percentage of the patients dropped out before the study was completed.  Most outrageous of all, the last 2 studies listed actually concluded the opposite to what the plastic surgeons claimed:  The Israeli study and the Baylor study that both concluded that several autoimmune diseases with symptoms similar to BII are significantly increased after women get breast  implants.

#3.  They mistakenly conclude that since women with saline breast implants also report BII symptoms, the symptoms are not related to the silicone shell.  This is a ridiculous statement since all breast implants have silicone shells.

#4.  In contrast to their uncritical acceptance of poorly designed and biased studies funded by implant manufacturers and surgeons with financial ties to those implant makers, when the authors briefly mention studies showing that women with BII symptoms that improve after their implants are removed, they speculate (without evidence) that such improvement might be temporary.  It is notable that they didn’t even mention the 2021 study by Dr. Feng and her colleagues, which showed significant improvement in lung function after explant surgery.  That is no accident, since this Aesthetic Society article was published many months later.

There are too many other careless errors in the article to list them all.  I can’t help but wonder if the authors read any of the studies they were supposedly quoting.  While urging plastic surgeons to pretend to be open-minded, the authors are anything but.  They repeatedly misrepresent research findings in order to support their biased view that the symptoms of breast implant illness are not caused by breast implants.

In summary: This article makes it clear that the Aesthetic Society is encouraging their members to “gaslight” patients with BII, rather than help them get explanted.  Women who are seeking well-informed plastic surgeons should avoid the authors and think twice before believing anything they hear from plastic surgeons that belong to the Aesthetic Society, since the journal is published by that medical group.

STAT Report : The need for speed and safety: A primer on the FDA’s drug approval pathways

In the News, news-you-can-use, We're In the News

By Kerry Dooley Young, March 2022

 

[….]

Only about 14% of drugs that advance as far as clinical trials eventually win FDA approval, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported in a 2018 paper in the journal Biostatistics. That’s actually an improvement from previous estimates that put the failure rate at about 90%.

Productive researchers can spend their careers at pharmaceutical and biotech companies without seeing any of their work result in a marketed product.

“I’ve been doing this for 27 years, and I have never once put a drug into a pharmacy,” Derek Lowe, a medicinal chemist and noted blogger, said in a 2016 interview with STAT.

[….]

ACCELERATED APPROVAL

In cases of fatal or serious illnesses such as cancer, the FDA allows sales of drugs through its accelerated-approval program based on promising results that only suggest a significant benefit for patients.

As of December 2021, the FDA had granted 278 accelerated approvals. But many of these were granted to the same medicines for multiple uses, or indications — so in total, only about 160 different medicines have won accelerated approval. Sometimes the designations pertain to different uses for the same drug.

An extreme example is Merck’s Keytruda cancer medicine. The FDA has granted more than 30 accelerated approvals of Keytruda, covering its use in more than a dozen forms of cancer. Keytruda also serves as a good example of why the accelerated approval process has been used so often for cancer medicines — and why there are growing concerns about this speedy pathway.

[….]

Since March 2021, Merck has voluntarily withdrawn two additional approvals granted for Keytruda.

The Keytruda withdrawals follow a public crackdown by Pazdur, the FDA’s top regulator of cancer drugs, on what he terms “dangling” accelerated approvals — cases where companies have not moved to seek the withdrawal of an accelerated approval after confirmatory trials fail.

[….]

Pazdur, who joined FDA in 1999, has been a champion of using accelerated approval, but he is insistent that the industry use the pathway the way it was intended. He’s been wrestling for years with drugmakers about standards for evidence, while also working to speed drug approvals.

“We have a litany of [drug companies] that come in and pose the question to us… ‘What is the lowest response rate that you will take? What is the fewest number of patients that you will take?’” Pazdur said during an FDA advisory committee meeting in 2004.

That’s not what the pathway is for, he made clear. “It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less.”

[…]

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CHANGE?

Expect intense political clashes in the months ahead as Congress works on a major new FDA law.

[….]

Under President Biden’s new FDA Commissioner, Califf, the agency has asked Congress to give it more tools to compel drugmakers to complete research promised after accelerated approvals. This includes a request to make companies demonstrate that they have adequate plans for confirmatory studies before winning accelerated approvals.

These kinds of steps are needed to restore the public trust in the FDA, said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, which closely monitors the agency.

 

“Califf will find it impossible to restore the FDA’s reputation if he focuses primarily on the need for faster approvals and more flexible approval standards,” Zuckerman told STAT.

 

“The commissioner needs to directly address the Aduhelm disaster, because the FDA leadership responsible for that decision are still in positions of power in the agency.”

 

The entire 30 page report is available from Stat here.

Will the FDA change how it vets drugs following the Alzheimer’s debacle?

News Stories & Editorials, We're In the News, , ,

Max Kozlov, Nature, May 13, 2022

Nearly a year after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave the green light to a controversial drug to treat Alzheimer’s disease, lawmakers are attempting to amend the process that led to its approval.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees drug safety and biomedical research, announced last week that it hopes to grant the FDA greater authority to rescind accelerated approvals if a company fails to complete follow-up studies on the treatment in a reasonable amount of time.

The provision, which was introduced as part of an FDA funding reauthorization bill, likely to be passed before September, comes on the heels of the agency’s 2021 approval of aducanumab, an antibody drug shown to reduce the accumulation of plaques in the brain associated with the progression of Alzheimer’s. Despite a nearly unanimous vote against the approval by an independent panel of experts, the agency fast-tracked the drug, which was developed by Biogen, a biotechnology company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Three advisory-panel members resigned in protest against the decision, and the approval is the subject of multiple investigations by federal regulators.

Aducanumab is not the only reason that this drug-approval pathway is coming under fire: since its inception, the programme has led to 279 treatments reaching the market, with nearly two-thirds in the past decade alone (see ‘Growing momentum for accelerated approval’). The programme’s increasing popularity signals a shift away from its original intent, says Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, a non-profit organization in Washington DC. “Accelerated approval started out as a special programme for a small number of drugs, and now most cancer drugs are going through accelerated or some other expedited pathway,” she says.

Companies, moreover, have been slow to produce the follow-up studies promised as part of the approval process. The FDA has limited power to compel them to provide the data, but the legislative proposal — which could still change significantly as it wends its way through the House of Representatives and the Senate — could grant it more authority to do so.

Days before his appointment in February, FDA commissioner Robert Califf pledged to make accelerated-approval reform a priority for the agency. Researchers who spoke to Nature agree that reforms are needed to protect the integrity of the programme, and that the proposed legislation is a good start. But they also recommended more agency oversight and other changes that would further prevent pharmaceutical firms from abusing this route to the market.

“Instead of the drug companies living up to and working to ensure that they are employing the accelerated-approval pathway as intended, we have too many that are willing to take advantage of the loopholes where they can find them,” says David Mitchell, president of Patients for Affordable Drugs, a non-profit organization in Washington DC, who serves as a consumer representative on the independent panel that reviews cancer drugs for the FDA.

The need for speed

The FDA created the accelerated-approval pathway in 1992, largely in response to the HIV–AIDS crisis, to get urgently needed drugs to the market without delay. Instead of demonstrating efficacy through clinically-meaningful endpoints, such as patient survival or reduction of symptoms, drug candidates reviewed under this pathway often rely on what are known as surrogate endpoints, which may be faster or easier to track than conventional clinical-trial endpoints. For example, tumour shrinkage is a common surrogate used in cancer-drug clinical trials, but this metric is not necessarily linked to a direct benefit to patients.

Gregg Gonsalves, an epidemiologist and global health specialist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, was among the group that persuaded the FDA to adopt this programme. “We pushed for this accelerated approval pathway because people were dying,” he says. “I’m HIV positive, so I get the desperation and need for hope.”

The pathway has turbocharged the number of immunotherapies and cancer treatments on the market. But some of these drugs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, despite, in many cases, limited data showing their clinical utility. Gonsalves argues that the programme has been co-opted by the pharmaceutical industry to speed approvals. Cancer treatments approved through the pathway have made it to market on average about three years earlier than they would through standard routes. And a single study using surrogate endpoints could be enough to get a treatment on the market.

Part of the problem, says Caleb Alexander, an internal-medicine specialist and epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, is that drug companies aren’t upholding their end of the bargain with timely post-market studies confirming the benefits of the drug. Some researchers question whether companies are given too much time to produce such data. A 2021 analysis found that 13% of drugs granted accelerated approval between 1992 and 2016 hadn’t been converted to full approval within five years — and remained on the market for a median of 9.5 years without the data needed for conversion.

[….]

Post-market trials can take a long time, especially for slowly-progressing conditions such as neurodegenerative diseases, says a spokesperson for the Rare Disease Company Coalition, an organization in Washington DC that represents 21 pharmaceutical firms.

It is also difficult for companies to recruit participants, because people would much rather be guaranteed an approved medicine than risk getting a placebo. Instead of demanding that a company stop selling a drug that hasn’t been converted to full approval, says Zuckerman, the agency often requests that the company voluntarily withdraw it from the market. “The FDA loses an enormous amount of leverage once a product is approved,” says Alexander.

[….]

How effective the proposed rule changes for the US FDA would be is unclear. Although they would make it easier for the agency to withdraw approval, they would also lengthen the bureaucratic process of rescinding approvals. This defangs the provision, Zuckerman says. She would have preferred to stick with an earlier proposal, which would have automatically revoked approvals once confirmatory trials were one year overdue.

Zuckerman also recommends that the FDA commissioner’s office create a separate independent advisory group to review agency approvals that go against advisory panel recommendations — as happened for aducanumab. “The vast majority of advisory-committee votes recommend approval, so when they don’t recommend approval, there’s usually a really good reason,” she says.

Alexander suggests using health-care coverage as leverage. The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in Baltimore, for example, decides which treatments will be funded for tens of millions of US residents. Earlier this year, concerned about the efficacy of aducanumab, the CMS stated that it would cover the annual US$28,800 cost of the drug only for people enrolled in clinical trials.

Although that decision is nearly unprecedented, Alexander thinks that the CMS should consider a lower reimbursement rate for other accelerated-approval treatments that have not yet gained full approval. Such a move could “light a fire underneath manufacturers” to complete their trials, he says. “Why should taxpayers be on the hook for paying the full price of a drug when we don’t know the full scope of its safety and effectiveness?” he asks.

[….]

Reform won’t be simple. Once a medicine enters the market, Mitchell says, “drug companies aren’t anxious to find a reason to take it off”.

Still, many researchers and drug-safety advocates are eager to see change. “We started out trying to fix a pendulum that was too far in one direction,” says Zuckerman, “and look how far we’ve come in this direction now.”

To read the entire article, click here.

Danica Patrick reveals she had breast implants removed after suffering complications

News Stories & Editorials, We're In the News,

Katie Kindelan, Good Morning America, May 2, 2022

Former NASCAR driver Danica Patrick revealed she had her breast implants removed after suffering medical complications she believes were caused by the implants.

Patrick, who turned 40 in March, shared in an Instagram post that she had her implants removed this month, nearly eight years after undergoing breast augmentation surgery.

“I wasn’t sure I was ready to share this…. but then I remembered that true vulnerability is sharing something you’re not really ready to. So here it is,” Patrick wrote on Instagram, before going on to describe the complications she said she faced.

Patrick said she first noticed complications about three years after getting breast implants, including weight gain and hair breakage.

Nearly two years ago, at the end of 2020, Patrick said the “wheels came off” with her health.

“I had cycle irregularity, gained more weight, my hair wasn’t looking healthy at all and my face was a different shape (weird I know),” she wrote, adding that she also faced dizziness, adrenal fatigue, hypoglycemia, leaky gut and more. “So I went down the rabbit hole to figure it out. I did every test that could be done.”

Patrick wrote that she went to multiple doctors, took thyroid medications, tried a 90-day protocol to heal her gut and at one point was taking “up to 30 pills a day” to improve her health, all to no avail.

Ultimately, Patrick said she came to the conclusion that she had breast implant illness, a term coined by clinicians and patients to describe symptoms reported by women after breast reconstruction or augmentation using implants, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
After undergoing surgery to remove the implants, Patrick said she quickly noticed improvements to her health.

“Within hours after surgery this is what I noticed – my face had more color and less dark circles … my face started producing oil again,” she wrote. “I could take a 30% deeper breath into my chest already, and I had so much energy when I woke up.”

[….]

What to know about breast implant illness

Breast implant illness is not yet a recognized medical term but is described by experts as a “diagnosis by exclusion,” according to Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D., president of the National Center for Health Research, who has studied the health impact of breast implants for over 30 years.
“Diagnosis by exclusion means that there is no test for it, but there are tests for other things that have the same symptoms or similar symptoms,” Zuckerman said. “And if there is no other reason for this array of symptoms, then there are doctors who will call it breast implant illness.”

There are as many as 40 symptoms of breast implant illness, but the most common symptoms include joint and muscle pain, fatigue, memory problems or brain fog, hair loss and difficulty breathing, according to Zuckerman.

She said Patrick’s story of taking years to get to a diagnosis is not uncommon for women who suffer health complications due to breast implants.

It can take years for breast implants to start causing complications, which makes it more difficult to link complications back to breast implants, according to Zuckerman, who was not involved in Patrick’s care. She also noted that many of the symptoms of breast implant illness can, and are, attributed to other things.

“When [women] go to the doctor and say, ‘I have joint pain. I’m really tired,’ the doctor will say things like, ‘No wonder you’re tired, you have a young child,’ or, ‘No wonder you’re tired, you’re 45 years old. You’re not 25 years old anymore,” said Zuckerman.

“So there’s been this, some might call it gaslighting, but this sense that these are common symptoms and they could be anything,” she said. “But, what is distinct about them is there are so many women who are experiencing them, and there are very good studies showing when women have these symptoms and they have their breast implants taken out, almost all of them get better.”

Breast implant surgery is considered an elective procedure that is done not only for cosmetic reasons but also for women undergoing breast reconstruction after a medical procedure such as a mastectomy.

Saline-filled and silicone gel-filled are the two types of breast implants approved for use in the United States, according to the FDA.

Breast implants may cause damage if they leak in the body, or because they can cause scar tissue to build in the body, according to Zuckerman.

“When women have a breast implant, their body almost always forms a scar tissue capsule around the implant,” she said. “The body is basically protecting itself by surrounding this foreign body, this breast implant, with scar tissue, and that scar tissue can get very thick and can get very hard and be a bad symptom in that it can be painful.”

Zuckerman said that the popularization of social media has helped women with similar symptoms connect and share their experiences, leading to greater awareness and more diagnoses of breast implant illness.

Patrick wrote on Instagram that she watched “over 100 stories on YouTube” of women with breast implant complications.

“Social media has really made the big difference here,” Zuckerman said. “It wasn’t until Facebook and other social media options became available that women could really share their stories.”

“We’ve certainly known women who’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars on tests and specialists, and nothing helped and then they went online and found a Facebook page or some other social media, and they started reading these stories of other women that sounded just like them,” she said.

[….]

Zuckerman, a member of the working group that advised the FDA on implant safety, said she advises women who are thinking of getting implants to make sure they also have the resources to get them removed later on if needed.

“Don’t get them unless you can afford to have them taken out,” she said. “A lot of women spend all this money getting them put in, and then when they get sick, they don’t have the money to get them taken out. It costs just as much, sometimes more, to have them taken out.”

To read the entire story, click here.

What’s Wrong with the FDA?

We're In the News

Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, Washington Monthly: January 20, 2022

If Robert Califf, the White House nominee for commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is confirmed by the Senate, he’ll take the reins of an agency with its reputation in tatters. Once revered as the global leader in drug regulation, the FDA has approved one bad drug and medical device after another over the past 30 years, leaving staff demoralized and overseas regulators scratching their heads. Meanwhile, about a third of Americans refuse to get vaccinated for COVID-19, in part because they distrust government and scientific institutions.

In the case of the FDA, at least some of that mistrust is deserved even if the COVID vaccines are generally safe. (We’ve both taken them.) The most recent FDA disaster erupted in June, when officials approved the Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm over the objections of the agency’s biostatistician and an 11-member committee of expert advisers. The data submitted by Biogen, the drug’s manufacturer, failed to show that Aduhelm is effective. It also poses a significant risk of harm, including brain bleeds and swelling in about a third of test subjects. Agency higher-ups decided to overlook these shortcomings and put the drug on a fast track for approval.

[….]

The Aduhelm debacle and other FDA blunders can be traced to declining scientific standards at the agency and increasingly cozy ties with the companies it regulates.

[….]

All of which suggests there’s not much chance that Califf would be the reformer the FDA needs. With eternal hope that the full Senate will reject him or, if he’s confirmed, he and the White House will pursue a reform agenda, we talked to several experts about their priorities for fixing the agency. In their view and ours, the following represent the top five actions that need to be taken.

1. Enforce commitments made by drugmakers.

The FDA awards expedited or fast-track approvals for drugs with a promise by the manufacturer that it will conduct further, more rigorous studies. However, by 2018, according to a recent review, companies followed through on only 38 percent (166 of 437) of drugs.

[….]

2. Rescind the approval of drugs that cause harm but don’t benefit patients.

When follow-up studies show that drugs are ineffective or dangerous, the FDA needs to pull them. Right now, drugs are still being prescribed to patients even though rigorous clinical trials have shown they don’t work. The agency recently allowed four out of six widely used (and heavily advertised) cancer drugs to stay on the market after their follow-up studies failed to show any benefit. Only five of 54 costly, toxic cancer drugs approved by the agency between 2008 and 2012 improved survival rates.

[….]

3. Restore rigorous scientific standards.

Many experts, including multiple FDA insiders, have complained about the progressive decay of scientific standards at the agency. This has only gotten worse since 2016, with the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, which gives the FDA enormous leeway in what kinds of studies it demands of companies in order to get their drugs approved. The FDA needs flexibility, says Steven Goodman, associate dean of clinical and translational research at Stanford, “but it has been erring on the side of lowering the scientific bar.”

For most drugs, companies should be required to produce two randomized clinical trials, the gold standard of medical science, showing that the drug provides meaningful benefit. Fewer drugs should be approved based on a “surrogate marker,” often an imaging study or blood test that is affected by a drug but may have little to do with whether or not patients benefit. “Too many FDA decisions have been based on wishful thinking rather than medical evidence,” says Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, a Washington, D.C.–based public health think tank.

4. Clean house.

Somebody needs to jam the revolving door at the FDA. Physicians, scientists, and administrators come to the agency from industry, push industry-friendly decisions, and then leave government for new, lucrative positions in the private sector.

Take Patrizia Cavazzoni, the head of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, who oversaw the approval of Aduhelm. Before joining the agency in 2019, Cavazzoni spent nearly two decades in high-level positions with the pharmaceutical giants Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi-Aventis. After overruling the FDA advisory committee’s resounding vote against Aduhelm, she suggested that industry “partner” with the FDA in choosing committee members, an idea that violates the whole point of having outside, independent advisers.

[….]

5. Stop Big Pharma financing.

Finally, President Biden should call on Congress to fully fund the FDA by repealing the legislation mandating that the drug industry pay for its own reviews. “What really needs to happen is to mitigate the power that Pharma already has over the FDA,” says Erick Turner, professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University and a former member of an FDA advisory committee. That can’t happen as long as the FDA is dependent on industry money.

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.

Biden’s ‘Cancer Moonshot’ Turns Toward Pollution

Brain Cancer, In the News, We're In the News

Ariel Wittenberg and Nico Portundo, E&E News: February 3, 2022

President Biden made an emotional pledge yesterday to “end cancer as we know it” by reinvigorating the Cancer Moonshot initiative he first launched in 2016, just one year after his son Beau succumbed to the disease.

“I committed to this fight when I was vice president. It’s one of the reasons, quite frankly, why I ran for president,” Biden told a room of cancer patients, survivors, caregivers, researchers and advocates.

A lot has changed since Biden first launched the program. This moonshot doesn’t come with any new funding, for example, but the White House says recent progress in cancer therapeutics, diagnostics and patient-driven care, as well as public health lessons learned during the Covid-19 pandemic, mean the initiative can be successful.

Another change in the renewed moonshot: an acknowledgment that environmental exposures can cause cancer.

While the previous Cancer Moonshot largely focused on funding research for treatments and cures for cancer, the renewed effort—whose goal is to reduce cancer death rates by 50 percent in the next 25 years — includes multiple initiatives to prevent cancer.

That includes addressing pollution.

“President Biden described seven areas of focus in which to make progress to end cancer as we know it today,” White House Cancer Moonshot Coordinator Danielle Carnival told E&E News in a statement. “Cancer prevention is one of those pillars and limiting exposure to carcinogens is an important part of preventing cancer.”

[….]

Though many in the environmental health field have long understood that chemical exposures can cause cancer and change peoples’ cancer outcomes, that fact hasn’t always been acknowledged by the broader medical community, which has focused more on genetic causes (Greenwire, May 4, 2021).

Linda Birnbaum, who formerly lead the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, told E&E News that she “tried really hard” to get the agency involved in the first moonshot initiative but was met with resistance from the National Cancer Institute.

“Environment is just not something they think about,” she said. “I’m glad to see it is at least mentioned this time.”

[….]

‘Just one sentence’

Indeed, cleaning up pollution is just one part of one of the new moonshot’s goals, which also include diagnosing cancer sooner, preventing cancer, addressing inequities, targeting the right treatment for each patient, and ramping up progress against rare and childhood cancers, among other things.

Environmental health experts were quick to note that merely acknowledging chemicals’ impact on cancers is only a first step, and say that the administration would have to do a better job at curbing pollution in order to truly “end cancer as we know it.”

In all of the pomp and circumstance surrounding the new moonshot’s launch, the experts note that environmental factors were mentioned just once in a fact sheet, and not at all in remarks from the president, vice president or first lady. Rather, much of the White House material on cancer prevention focuses on whether the mRNA technology used in Covid-19 vaccines to teach the immune system to respond to the virus could also teach bodies to stop cancer cells when they first appear.

“mRNA technology, yes, let’s spend as much money as we can to try and develop that vaccine, and maybe it will work,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research. “But if you really wanted bang for your buck, you would want to look at environmental issues where prevention will really improve peoples’ health and reduce cancers, and that’s just one sentence here.”

Julie Brody, executive director of the Silent Spring Institute, said she wanted the moonshot to “take a bigger approach to prevention and environmental chemicals in particular,” citing a “revolution in how we think about causes of cancer” since the previous moonshot was launched.

[….]

But when White House officials discussed cancer prevention in a call with reporters earlier this week, environmental issues didn’t come up at all.

“We know cancer is a disease where we have too few effective ways to prevent it,” said one senior administration official. “There are some: don’t smoke, for example. But we don’t have lots of effective ways right now to prevent cancer.”

American Lung Association Senior Vice President for Public Policy Paul Billings agrees that there’s not one chemical like tobacco that could be the focus of prevention efforts. But, he said, “If you really want to end cancer as we know it, we do need to deal with things like environmental exposures.”

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.

NCHR Comments on the MDUFA V Commitment Letter

Legislation, Uncategorized, ,

April 21, 2022

The National Center for Health Research (NCHR) appreciates the opportunity to provide public comments on the Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA) V Commitment letter, and to express our substantial concerns with the overall process as well as the shortcomings of the Commitment letter.

NCHR is a nonprofit think tank that conducts, analyzes, and scrutinizes research on a range of health issues and health policies, with particular focus on ensuring that treatments are safe and effective for patients and consumers. We do not accept funding from companies that make products that are the subject of our work, so we have no conflicts of interest.

The negotiations between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and medical device industry are unlike regulatory processes at other federal agencies. The typical process is more transparent and includes meaningful stakeholder engagement and feedback from the public. The fact that the very industries being regulated by the FDA meet behind closed doors with FDA staff to negotiate a Commitment Letter, with no members of the public allowed to be in the room or have access to a transcript or recording, raises important questions about why industry has more say in FDA policies and practices than other Stakeholders. We previously pointed out the lack of transparency and the lack of meeting minutes, which we were told would be publicly available – but weren’t.

This proposed Commitment letter, although late, has already been delivered to Members of Congress. The House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on March 30, 2022, on the contents of the proposed Commitment Letter. It seems disingenuous to request public feedback, at this week’s meeting or in writing, at this late point in the process.

In addition to the lack of transparency in the process and lack of public representation in negotiations between FDA and the medical device industry, the Commitment Letter fails to include any performance measures specifically linked to patient safety. Given the lack of safety or effectiveness data prior to clearance or approval of more than 95% of medical devices, post-market surveillance is crucially important. And yet, the Commitment Letter provides no requirement for financial support for post-market monitoring of studies or MAUDE reports, putting patients at risk for years to come.

Despite our lack of confidence in the FDA’s negotiated agreement with industry, below are our specific recommendations for your consideration as you finalize the MDUFA V Commitment Letter:

  1. Include performance measures tied to device safety, such as total time to recall a device following adverse event reporting.
  2. Direct any additional funds earned by FDA for meeting premarket performance goals to post-market surveillance activities.
  3. The total product life cycle advisory program (TAP) should include post-market activities to truly capture the full life cycle. This is becoming even more important as devices become more complex and technology rapidly changes. User fees should be used to support technology systems to monitor devices. Based on the description in the proposed Commitment Letter, TAP would focus on early communication with industry to troubleshoot potential issues with applications, but not to monitor the devices once they are on the market.
  4. Diversity and accessibility performance measures should be included in the proposed Commitment Letter.
    1. Industry could be provided a discount on fees if certain diversity performance goals are met in a PMA application.
    2. Industry should be required to include a detailed plan on potential device recalls. The plan should include how information will be shared with patients and what steps will be taken to ensure the information is presented in a timely manner and accessible formats.

When Congress required that stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in the MDUFA V reauthorization process, they intended that our participation would be meaningful. This is the final opportunity for the FDA to fulfill that obligation in MDUFA V.

NCHR Letter to Members of the Board of the Los Gatos Union School District on Artificial Turf and Playgrounds

Environmental Exposures, Uncategorized

National Center for Health Research, April 18th, 2022

Dear Superintendent Johnson and Members of the Board of the Los Gatos Union School District:

I am writing to share scientific information about artificial turf and playground surfaces, which I am confident will help you determine what is best for the children and adults in your community.

As President of the National Center for Health Research, I am writing at the request of many of your constituents to share the information we have provided to Members of Congress, state and federal agencies, state and local legislators, parents, and others who want to ensure that our children are not exposed to dangerous chemicals when they play on artificial turf or playgrounds. Our nonprofit think tank is located in Washington, D.C. Our scientists, physicians, and health experts conduct studies and scrutinize research. Our goal is to explain scientific and medical information that can be used to improve policies, programs, services, and products.

We understand that these issues are hotly debated, but some information is more accurate than others.  For example, if you look at the maintenance contract for an artificial field, you will see that it needs to be watered regularly to prevent it from becoming dangerously hard and to keep its warranty in place.  In other words, grass fields and artificial turf fields both require water, but well-designed grass fields will last much longer and be more cost-effective.

In the last few years, scientists have learned more about lead and PFAS in artificial turf, as well as the risks of some of the newer infill materials that are available to replace tire crumb. Tire crumb has well-known risks, containing chemicals that have the potential to increase obesity; contribute to early puberty; cause attention problems such as ADHD; exacerbate asthma; and eventually cause cancer. However, the plastic grass itself has dangerous levels of lead, PFAS, and other toxic chemicals as well.  PFAS are of particular concern because they enter the body and the environment as “forever chemicals,” which means that they are not metabolized and do not deteriorate, accumulating over the years. Replacing tire waste with silica, zeolite, and other materials also has substantial risks.  For example, it is well known that “particulate matter” can cause lung problems and eventually cause lung cancer.  For that reason, silica and zeolite are of great concern.

Federal agencies such as the EPA and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission have been investigating the safety of these products. Despite claims to the contrary, none have concluded that artificial turf is safe. Although the Trump Administration’s EPA stated that there was no conclusive evidence that the levels of chemicals in artificial turf was harmful to children, they explained that their research was based on assumptions and that they had not conducted or reviewed studies of children exposed to artificial turf.

Lead

As you probably know, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that no level of lead exposure should be considered safe for children, because lead can cause cognitive damage even at low levels. Some children are more vulnerable than others, and that can be difficult or even impossible to predict. Since lead has been found in tire crumb as well as in new synthetic rubber, it is not surprising

that numerous artificial turf fields and playground surfaces made with either tire crumb or “virgin” rubber have been found to contain lead. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also warns that the “plastic grass” made with nylon or some other materials also contains lead. Whether from infill, plastic grass, or rubber playground surfaces, the lead doesn’t just stay on the surface. With wear, the materials turn to dust containing lead and other chemicals that is invisible to the eye and is inhaled by children when they play.

Why are chemicals that are banned from children’s toys allowed in artificial turf and rubber playground surfaces?

Synthetic rubber and plastic are made with different types of endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (also called EDCs). There is very good evidence regarding these chemicals in tire crumb, based on studies done at Yale and by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).1  However, rubber playground surfaces contain many of the same dangerous chemicals as tire crumb, since they are very similar materials, all made from petroleum.

A 2018 report by Yale scientists detected 92 chemicals in samples from 6 different artificial turf companies. Unfortunately, the health risks of most of these chemicals had never been studied. However, 20% of the chemicals that had been tested are classified as probable carcinogens and 40% are irritants that can cause asthma or other breathing problems, or can irritate skin or eyes.2

There are numerous studies indicating that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (also called hormone-disrupting chemicals) found in rubber and plastic cause serious health problems. Scientists at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (which is part of NIH) have concluded that unlike most other chemicals, hormone-disrupting chemicals can be dangerous at very low levels, and the exposures can also be dangerous when they combine with other exposures in our environment.

That is why the Consumer Product Safety Commission has banned numerous endocrine-disrupting chemicals from toys and products used by children. The products involved, such as pacifiers and teething toys, are banned even though they would result in very short-term exposures compared to artificial turf or playground surfaces.

A report warning about possible harm to people who are exposed to rubber and other hormone disrupting chemicals at work explains that these chemicals “can mimic or block hormones and disrupt the body’s normal function, resulting in the potential for numerous health effects. Similar to hormones, endocrine-disrupting chemicals can function at very low doses in a tissue-specific manner and may exert non-traditional dose–response because of the complicated dynamics of hormone receptor occupancy and saturation.”3

Studies are beginning to demonstrate the contribution of skin exposure to the development of respiratory sensitization and altered pulmonary function. Not only does skin exposure have the potential to contribute to total body burden of a chemical, but also the skin is a highly biologically active organ capable of chemical metabolism and the initiation of a cascade of immunological events, potentially leading to adverse outcomes in other organ systems.

Scientific Evidence of Cancer and Other Systemic Harm

It is essential to distinguish between evidence of harm and evidence of safety. Companies that sell and install artificial turf often claim there is “no evidence children are harmed” or “no evidence that the fields cause cancer.” This is often misunderstood as meaning the products are safe or are proven to not cause harm. Neither is true.

It is true that there no clear evidence that an artificial turf field has caused specific children to develop cancer. However, the statement is misleading because it is virtually impossible to prove any chemical exposure causes one specific individual to develop cancer.

As an epidemiologist, I can also tell you that for decades there was no evidence that smoking or Agent Orange caused cancer. It took many years to develop that evidence, and the same will be true for artificial turf.

I have testified about the risks of these materials at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission as well as state legislatures and city councils. I am sorry to say that I have repeatedly seen and heard scientists paid by the turf industry and other turf industry lobbyists say things that are absolutely false. They claim that these products are proven safe (not true) and that federal agencies have stated there are no health risks (also not true).

However, we know that the materials being used in artificial turf and rubber playground surfaces contain carcinogens, and when children are exposed to those carcinogens day after day, week after week, and year after year, they increase the chances of our children developing cancer, either in the next few years or later as adults. That should be adequate reason not to install them in your community. That’s why I have spoken out about the risks of artificial turf in my community and on a national level. The question must be asked: if they had all the facts, would your community choose to spend millions of dollars on fields that are less safe than well-designed natural grass fields?

Dangerously Hot and Hard Fields

When the weather is warm and/or sunny, it is usually quite pleasant to be outside – as long as you aren’t on artificial turf or an outdoor rubber surface. Even when the temperature above the grass is 80 degrees Fahrenheit, artificial turf can reach 150 degrees or higher. Obviously, a 90 degree day is likely to be even hotter than 150 degrees on turf. That can cause “heat poisoning” as well as burns.

Artificial turf fields get hard as well. Turf companies recommend annual tests at 10 locations on each turf field, using something called a Gmax score. A Gmax score over 200 is considered extremely dangerous, and it is considered by industry to pose a death risk. However, the synthetic turf industry and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), suggest scores should be even lower — below 165 to ensure safety comparable to a grass field. Will your community pay to have these tests conducted annually on all your public artificial turf fields?

The hardness of natural grass fields is substantially influenced by rain and other weather; if the field gets hard, rain or watering will make it safe again. In contrast, once an artificial turf field has a Gmax score above 165, it needs to be replaced because while the scores can vary somewhat due to weather, the scores will inevitably get higher because the turf will get harder. Gmax testing involves testing 10 different areas of a playing fields, to make sure all are considered safe.  Some officials average those 10 scores to determine safety; however, experts explain that is not appropriate. If a child (or adult) falls, it can be at the hardest part of the field, which is why safety is supposed to be determined by the score of the hardest part of the field.

Environmental Issues

In addition to the health risks to school children and athletes, approximately three tons of infill materials migrate off of each synthetic turf field into the greater environment each year. About 2-5 metric tons of infill must be replaced every year for each field, meaning that tons of the infill have migrated off the field into grass, water, and our homes.4 The fields also continuously shed microplastics as the plastic blades break down.5,6 These materials may contain additives such as PAHs, flame retardants, and UV inhibitors, which can be toxic to marine and aquatic life. Microplastics are known to migrate into the oceans, the food chain, and drinking water, and they can absorb and concentrate other toxins from the environment.7,8,9

Synthetic surfaces also create heat islands.10,11 In contrast, organically managed natural grass saves energy by dissipating heat, cooling the air, and reducing energy to cool nearby buildings. Natural grass and soil protect groundwater quality; biodegrade polluting chemicals and bacteria; reduce surface water runoff; abate noise; and reduce glare.12

Alternative Infills

Envirofill artificial turf fields are advertised as “cooler” and “safer,” but our research indicates that these fields are still at least 30-50 degrees hotter than natural grass. Envirofill is composed of materials resembling plastic polymer pellets (similar in appearance to tic tacs) with silica inside. Silica is classified as a hazardous material according to OSHA regulations, and the American Academy of Pediatrics specifically recommends avoiding it on playgrounds. The manufacturers and vendors of these products claim that the silica stays inside the plastic coating. However, sunlight and the grinding force from playing on the field breaks down the plastic coating. For that reason, even the product warranty admits that only 70% of the silica will remain encapsulated. The other 30% can be very harmful as children are exposed to it in the air as particulate matter that can harm the lungs.

In addition, the Envirofill pellets and some other infill have been coated with an antibacterial called triclosan. Triclosan is registered as a pesticide with the EPA, and the FDA has banned triclosan from soaps because manufacturers were not able to prove that it is safe for long-term use. Research shows a link to liver and inhalation toxicity and hormone disruption. The manufacturer of Envirofill says that the company no longer uses triclosan, but they provide no scientific evidence that the antibacterial they are now using is any safer than triclosan. Microscopic particles of this synthetic turf infill will be inhaled by children, and visible and invisible particles come off of the field, ending up in shoes, socks, pockets, and hair.

In response to the concerns of educated parents and government officials, other new materials are now being used for infill instead of tire crumb and other very controversial materials. However, all the materials being used (such as zeolite, corn husks, and Corkonut) have raised concerns, and none are proven to be as safe or effective as well-designed grass fields.

Conclusions

There have never been any safety tests required prior to sale that prove that any artificial turf products are safe for children who play on them regularly. In many cases, the materials used are not publicly disclosed, making independent research difficult to conduct. None of these products are proven to be as safe as natural grass in well-constructed fields.

I have cited several relevant scientific articles on artificial turf in this letter, and there are numerous studies and growing evidence of the harm caused by these synthetic materials. I would be happy to provide additional information upon request (dz@center4research.org).

I am not paid to write this statement. I am one of the many parents and scientists who are very concerned about the impact of artificial fields on our children. Your decision about artificial turf and playground surfaces can save lives and improve the health of children in your community.  You owe it to your community to make sure that you know the risks of artificial turf and do all you can to protect your children from both the known risks and the suspected risks. Your decisions about artificial turf will be cited by other communities, making it even more important that your decision is based on scientific evidence, not on sales pitches by individuals with conflicts of interest.

Officials in communities all over the country have been misled by artificial turf salespeople. They were erroneously told that these products are safe. On the contrary, there is clear scientific evidence that these materials are harmful. The only question is how much exposure is likely to be harmful to which children? We should not be willing to take such a risk. Our children deserve better.

Sincerely,

Diana Zuckerman, PhD

President

References

  1. State of California-Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Contractor’s Report to the Board. Evaluation of Health Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in Playground and Track Products. January 2007. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/Tires%5C62206013.pdf
  2. Benoit G, Demars S. Evaluation of organic and inorganic compounds extractable by multiple methods from commercially available crumb rubber mulch. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 2018;229:64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-018-3711-7
  3. Anderson SE and Meade BJ. Potential Health Effects Associated with Dermal Exposure to Occupational Chemicals. Environmental Health Insights. 2014; 8(Suppl 1):51–62. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270264/
  4. York T. Greener grass awaits: Environmental & fiscal responsibility team up in synthetic turf. Recreation Management. February 2012. http://recmanagement.com/feature_print.php?fid=201202fe02
  5. Magnusson K, Eliasson K, Fråne A, et al. Swedish sources and pathways for microplastics to the marine environment, a review of existing data. Stockholm: IVL- Swedish Environmental Research Institute. 2016. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/miljoarbete-i-samhallet/miljoarbete-i-sverige/regeringsuppdrag/utslapp-mikroplaster-havet/RU-mikroplaster-english-5-april-2017.pdf
  6. Kole PJ, Löhr AJ, Van Belleghem FGAJ, Ragas AMJ. Wear and tear of tyres: A stealthy source of microplastics in the environment. International Journal of Environmental Research Public Health. 2017;14(10):pii: E1265. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29053641/
  7. Kosuth M, Mason SA, Wattenberg EV. Anthropogenic contamination of tap water, beer, and sea salt. PLoS One. 2018,13(4): e0194970. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5895013/
  8. Oehlmann J, Schulte-Oehlmann U, Kloas W et al.  A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2009;364:2047–2062. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1526/2047
  9. Thompson RC, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS, Swan SH. Plastics, the environment and human health: Current consensus and future trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2009;364:2153–2166. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2009.0053
  10. Thoms AW, Brosnana JT, Zidekb JM, Sorochana JC. Models for predicting surface temperatures on synthetic turf playing surfaces. Procedia Engineering. 2014;72:895-900. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705814006699
  11. Penn State’s Center for Sports Surface Research. Synthetic turf heat evaluation- progress report. 012. http://plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/ssrc/documents/heat-progress-report.pdf
  12. Stier JC, Steinke K, Ervin EH, Higginson FR, McMaugh PE. Turfgrass benefits and issues. Turfgrass: Biology, Use, and Management, Agronomy Monograph 56. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America. 2013;105–145. https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/books/tocs/agronomymonogra/turfgrassbiolog