All posts by CPTFadmin

Covid Booster Costs Spur Calls to Shift From Free Jabs for All

We're In the News

Celine Castronuovo, Bloomberg Law, April 11, 2022

The U.S. government’s Covid-19 vaccine funding may have to shift from a model of free shots for all to one in which the government only subsidizes boosters for targeted populations, public health analysts say.

Annual Covid-19 boosters for all Americans, tailored to the prevalent virus strain, would cost billions of dollars each year and may not be the most sustainable and effective path in responding to future variants. Analysts say reserving booster recommendations to those most at risk would be more cost-effective.

“Given the much greater expense of Covid boosters compared to flu shots and the time needed to revise and manufacture Covid vaccines, we need to hope we won’t need annual shots,” said Diana Zuckerman, founder and president of the National Center for Health Research.

It “would make sense to prioritize by focusing efforts to persuade and administer boosters to those most likely to benefit,” she said.

If the Biden administration were to purchase enough second-round booster doses for all eligible Americans, it would need to secure as much as $9.4 billion in additional funding, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis.

[….]

“The provision of vaccines on a long-term basis is probably going to devolve back to our fractured private and public sectors, instead of being paid for exclusively by the federal government,” said Brook Baker, a professor at Northeastern University School of Law and a senior policy analyst at Health GAP, an advocacy group focusing on equity in access to HIV medications.

Health policy watchers say the general population could need additional boosters if more infectious and deadly variants emerge. But existing evidence on booster efficacy and the price tag for shots in every American arm means the federal government should prioritize updated vaccines for older and immunocompromised people, and vulnerable populations elsewhere, they say.

[….]

Vulnerable Populations

Lower infection severity among younger populations, and waning enthusiasm for additional shots support an approach of prioritizing older and other higher-risk Americans in booster campaigns, analysts say.

“We are likely to only boost those who are vulnerable every year against COVID-19, unless we get a more deadly variant, in which case we will all need a booster shot that year,” Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an email.

Gandhi argued that the U.S. should follow the example of countries like Germany and Sweden, which have only recommended fourth doses for adults ages 70 years and older. She cited an Israeli study that didn’t show a fourth dose substantially benefited health-care workers under the age of 65.

“The need for further doses of the vaccine to boost antibodies will depend on clinical characteristics of the individual that may predispose to severe breakthrough infections,” like underlying health conditions, Gandhi said.

Only 45% of fully vaccinated Americans have received a first booster dose so far, according to CDC data. “The administration should not assume that everyone needs boosters now or will get them even if they need them,” Zuckerman said.

Purchasing doses at levels higher than existing demand would also mean unnecessary waste, Gandhi said. “Shots do expire, so purchasing them and having them go to waste is a waste of taxpayer money,” she said.

Instead, the administration could wait on additional research on multi-variant vaccines in development before recommending additional boosters to lower-risk people, Baker said.

“It’s a question of balancing current risks and against the possible benefits of recalibrated vaccines,” Baker said.

Long-Term Costs

Policy analysts also see a situation in the future in which the federal government no longer purchases doses directly from Pfizer and Moderna.

Providing boosters via health insurance, though, could exacerbate existing health inequities, said Leighton Ku, director of The George Washington University’s Center for Health Policy Research. “What’s terrible about Covid, and frankly speaking so many diseases, is people who are poor and vulnerable get hit the hardest.”

“I’ve always worried that the people who are uninsured are people who are low income and who are more vulnerable in so many ways,” Ku said.

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.

She’s the reason Arizona has a law requiring surgeons to warn patients about the dangers of breast implants

Breast Cancer, In the News, News Stories & Editorials, Uncategorized, We're In the News

Bianca Buono and Katie Wilcox, Arizona News 12 NBC: February 22, 2022

PHOENIX — Migraines. Headaches. Insomnia. Difficulty breathing. Trouble swallowing.

Robyn Towt survived three bouts with cancer. But it was breast implants that made her the sickest.

“I couldn’t figure out what was wrong with me,” Towt said.

At first, it was a mystery. She had recently survived breast cancer then had a double mastectomy with breast reconstruction. The cancer was gone, so why was she feeling so badly?

“My entire team of doctors failed me,” Towt said.

Towt said her team of doctors never mentioned that her breast implants could cause those side effects. She started doing her own research, desperate to figure out why she was feeling this way.

[….]

Undisclosed risks

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, has been outspoken about the dangers of implants for years.

“One of the things that’s been so tragic for all these years is how many women got sicker and sicker and sicker, year after year after year, going to doctors saying what’s wrong with me and the doctor saying, you know, I don’t know, do these tests and try to figure it out,” Zuckerman said.

“And then they finally discover on social media, that there are tens of thousands of women with exactly the same health problems they have, who also happen to have breast implants, and then they get their implants out, and they get better.”

Zuckerman has been pushing for acknowledgment from the FDA that breast implant illness exists, advocating for more research around what exactly causes it and pushing for transparency when it comes to the risks.

She says the FDA took a step in the right direction last year when the agency announced breast implants would be equipped with a black box warning.

The FDA boxed warning informs patients of the following:

  • Breast implants are not considered lifetime devices
  • The chance of developing complications increases over time
  • Some complications will require more surgery
  • Breast implants have been associated with the development of a cancer of the immune system called breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL)
  •  BIA-ALCL occurs more commonly in patients with textured breast implants than smooth implants, and deaths have occurred from BIA-ALCL
  • Breast implants have been associated with systemic symptoms

“They’re going to have what’s called a black box warning, that’s like the kind of warning you see on cigarette packages that tell you cigarettes can kill you,” Zuckerman said.

Arizona’s first-of-its-kind bill

Even still, that warning wasn’t always relayed by plastic surgeons to patients. That’s why lawmakers in Arizona decided to take matters into their own hands.

“We have to do something,” said state Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita.

Consultations for breast augmentations look different now in Arizona than they did a year ago.

That’s because a first-of-its-kind bill has passed in Arizona created to protect women against a badly kept secret involving breast augmentation surgery: breast implant illness.

“I was shocked to learn that there were so many women with very very similar stories and experiences. And yet there was nothing being done from the medical community’s perspective and point of view,” Ugenti-Rita said.

[….]

To read the entire article click here.

Public Comment PDUFA VII Commitment Letter (Docket #FDA-2021-N-0891) From the National Center for Health Research

Policy, Testimony & Briefings, , ,

October 28, 2021 

The National Center for Health Research (NCHR) appreciates the opportunity to provide public  comments on the PDUFA VII Commitment letter, and to express our substantial concerns with the overall process, some of the content of the letter, and performance goals that should have  been made in the letter, but were not. 

The Prescription Drug User Fee Authorization (PDUFA) negotiation between the Food and Drug  Administration (FDA) and pharmaceutical industry is 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 even be in the room, raises important questions about why  industry has more say in FDA policies and practices than other Stakeholders. 

The Commitment letter submitted for public comment is even more problematic than usual  because it includes numerous policy/regulatory changes that would normally be determined by  Congress, not by a negotiation between regulated industry and a federal agency. Policy/regulatory changes should be deleted from the Commitment Letter. 

The remainder of this comment will focus on performance goals. 

As a public health think tank, NCHR has supported user fees as a way to improve resources for  the FDA. However, we have repeatedly expressed concerns that the performance goals being  negotiated by the FDA and industry are focused largely on the speed of the review and approval  process, as well as industry’s access to FDA staff, with no explicit metrics to measure the safety and effectiveness of the drugs that are being reviewed and approved. We support performance  goals that enable companies to communicate with the FDA early in the drug approval  process. However, the emphasis on speed has resulted in too little attention to whether the drugs  have clinically meaningful benefits for different populations of patients that outweigh the risks to  those patients. 

One of our concerns pertaining to the performance goals is the lack of FDA oversight regarding  whether commitments to diversity that companies made to the FDA are met in the studies used  as the basis of approval or post-market studies. When there are too few older patients and racial minorities to conduct subgroup analyses, as is often the case, it has been impossible to draw  conclusions about the safety and efficacy of these drugs across the different patient populations. 

Another major issue missing from performance goals is that the emphasis on various expedited  review pathways has resulted in FDA making approval decisions based on only one pivotal  study, and often based on a surrogate endpoint or biomarker rather than a clinical outcome that is  meaningful to patients, such as overall survival. When post-market confirmatory trials are  required, they are not monitored closely by the FDA; as a result, years pass before the studies are either abandoned or completed, often with much smaller, less diverse study populations and  higher loss to follow-up than was “required.” For example, in 2021, we learned that  several cancer drugs had been found to be ineffective in confirmatory trials, many years after  they had been approved for several specific indications under an accelerated pathway. A study recently published in JAMA Internal Medicine reported that these ineffective indications cost  Medicare more than half a billion dollars.1 Another example of potential harms from a  questionable review is the recent FDA approval of Aduhelm for Alzheimer’s patients.2 This drug  was originally approved for all Alzheimer’s patients based on a questionable biomarker studied  only in patients with mild Alzheimer’s and the FDA allowed the company 9 years to complete a  confirmatory study. Fortunately, the agency responded to public outrage by changing the  approval to only mild Alzheimer’s, since those were the only patients that had been  studied. Unfortunately, the company still has 9 years to confirm that the drug is effective, and, in  the meantime, other pharmaceutical companies are racing to submit applications based on the  same flawed biomarkers. These are just two examples of why enforcement of timely and  comprehensive post-market surveillance requirements should be required as essential  performance goals. The current version of the Commitment Letter does not do so. 

User fees have been used previously to generously support the Sentinel program’s post-market  surveillance system; however, the impact of that system is not explained to the general  public. FDA should notify Congress and the public about how many drugs have been removed  from the market due to Sentinel data, the number and type of label revisions that resulted, and  how adverse events found through Sentinel did or did not differ for drugs approved under  various review pathways. The number of years that specific products were on the market before  Sentinel reported the need for label revisions or removal from the market should also be  calculated and widely reported as part of the performance goals. 

User fees should also be used to improve communication with patients and caretakers, including older adults, people with disabilities, people who are not fluent in English, and those  with limited literacy skills. Information provided by the FDA should include different formats  and videos and virtual meetings should have the option for closed-captioning and American Sign  Language translation. 

In conclusion, we believe that the Commitment Letter should delete policy/regulatory proposals  and do more to ensure the safety of patients and consumers and the scientific integrity of the  drug review process using the types of metrics we have suggested as part of the performance  goals. We appreciate the efforts of the agency to work toward those ends,  but when patients, consumers and other stakeholders are excluded from the PDUFA  negotiations, their priorities are excluded. We urge the Biden Administration to improve the  PDUFA VII Commitment Letter in the ways described in this comment. 

For more information, please contact Dr. Diana Zuckerman at dz@center4research.org. 

 1 Shahzad M, Naci H, Wagner AK. Estimated Medicare Spending on Cancer Drug Indications with a Confirmed  Lack of Clinical Benefit after US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval. JAMA Intern  Med. Published online October 18, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.5989 

2 FDA Grants Accelerated Approval for Alzheimer’s Drug, June 07, 202. 1https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press announcements/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-alzheimers-drug

Statement by Dr. Diana Zuckerman on Sintilimab at FDA Advisory Committee on Oncologic Drugs

Testimony & Briefings, , ,

February 10, 2022

I’m Dr. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research. Our center is a nonprofit think tank that scrutinizes the safety and effectiveness of medical products, and we don’t accept funding from companies that make those products.  My expertise is based on post-doc training in epidemiology and public health, and as a faculty member and researcher at Vassar, Yale, and Harvard.  I’ve also worked at HHS and the White House, and I’m on the Board of the nonprofit Alliance for a Stronger FDA, which educates Congress about the need to support the work of the FDA.

On a personal note, I am a cancer survivor, and so I understand the pressure to find new treatments. My goal today is to be as objective as I can in evaluating the evidence regarding Sintilimab.

There are many problems with the data supporting this application, but let’s start with the first mistake:

#1: The sponsor did not consult with the FDA regarding the trial’s design or conduct.  That is almost always a big mistake, and it definitely is in this case. The result is a very inadequate trial design, including a non-representative group of patients.

#2: Most important to me, the study relied on progression-free survival as the primary endpoint.  We agree with FDA scientists that other drugs in the same class have shown highly significant improvement in overall survival. What matters most to cancer patients is how long they will live and the quality of their remaining lives, not whether or not they die of the cancer they are being treated for. So what could possibly be the justification for approving a cancer drug that is not as good as those already available for the same indication?

#3: FDA is sometimes flexible about its usual requirements, especially when there is an unmet need.  We agree with the FDA scientists that this drug does not address an unmet need, since several treatments proven to improve overall survival are already available.  This drug review therefore “does not warrant regulatory flexibility.”

#4: As you know, the data are all based on patients in China.  For the FDA to consider foreign data as the sole basis for marketing approval, the data are supposed to be applicable to the U.S. population and to U.S. medical practice. We agree with the FDA that the data presented today are neither. The population studied is not at all representative of the U.S.’s diverse population.  Equally problematic, the study’s comparative control arm was based on chemotherapy alone, and that is not consistent with the U.S. standard of care. Therefore a different control group would be needed to determine the benefits and risks of Sintilimab.

FDA notes that the studies have NOT been performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence.  And that FDA has not had enough contact with the investigators to be confident of their competence.

#5: The sponsor has proposed an additional study, but their proposed study does not address the serious design issues that have been criticized today. We agree with the FDA reviewers that this additional study does “not address the concerns regarding endpoint selection.”

In conclusion, you’ve been asked to vote on whether additional clinical trials with data applicable to U.S. patients and U.S. standard of care are necessary before a final regulatory decision is made.  I am very concerned about the inadequate informed consent for patients in the study that was conducted.  I hope you will agree that yes, additional trials are needed and they need to address all the major shortcomings of the data submitted so far before the FDA decides whether to approve it.  Overall survival is the essential endpoint, at a level that is meaningful to patients. The patients studied must be representative of U.S. patients in terms of race, age, and other key variables, and the comparison group needs to have the kind of medical care that is the standard of care in the U.S.

FDA notes that they have more than 25 applications whose studies are at least predominantly based on clinical trial data from China. Each should be evaluated on its own merits, but the FDA’s decision regarding Sintilimab should not set a precedent for FDA approval decisions of medical products that are not appropriately studied to determine the risks and benefits of patients in the U.S.

FDA’s agenda in limbo as Biden’s nominee stalls in Senate

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

Matthew Perrone, Fox13: February 08, 2022

WASHINGTON — (AP) — President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Food and Drug Administration has stalled in the narrowly divided Senate, an unexpected setback that could delay decisions on electronic cigarettes and a raft of other high-profile health issues pending at the agency.

Biden nominated Dr. Robert Califf for the job in November after a 10-month search that critics complained left a leadership vacuum at the powerful regulatory agency, which has played a central role in the COVID-19 response effort.

Califf, a cardiologist who was an FDA commissioner under President Barack Obama, was viewed as a safe choice who could easily clear the Senate, given his 2016 confirmation by an overwhelming vote, 89-4.

But his latest Senate bid has been snared by political controversies on both the left and right that threaten to sink his nomination and leave the FDA in limbo for months — possibly even until a new Congress convenes next year.

No vote has been set on Califf’s nomination as Senate Democrats, the White House and other administration officials make a full-court press to lock up the votes needed to pass the 50-50 chamber. Former FDA officials warn that failure to move on Califf’s nomination will make it even harder to find and confirm future nominees.

“If he can’t get confirmed it bodes poorly for almost anyone else who could be nominated,” said Dr. Stephen Ostroff, who twice served as acting FDA commissioner. “What you’re seeing here is a lot of extraneous issues inserting themselves into the confirmation process and the same thing would happen to virtually anyone else nominated.”

Five Senate Democrats are opposing Califf due to his consulting work for drugmakers and the FDA’s track record of overseeing addictive painkillers that contributed to the U.S. opioid epidemic. That group includes Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, both from Republican-controlled states ravaged by the epidemic.

With Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico absent and recovering from a stroke, Democrats need the support of six Republicans to confirm Califf.

[….]

The White House long assumed enough Republicans would support Califf to easily overcome any Democratic defections, given his strong support from the pharmaceutical lobby. Indeed, Califf seemed to be cruising toward confirmation after a cordial hearing before the Senate’s health committee in December, which included friendly exchanges with most of its Republican members.

But two days after his appearance the FDA eased longstanding restrictions on abortion pills that allowed women to order them through the mail. Although Califf had no role in that decision, dozens of anti-abortion groups lobbied Republicans to vote against him based on earlier changes impacting the medications while he was at the FDA.

[….]

“It is troubling to see Dr. Califf judged on issues that are a very small part of the FDA’s responsibilities,” said Steven Grossman of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA, which represents industry, patient and consumer groups that interact with the agency. “This narrow focus increases the likelihood there will be more and longer periods when FDA is without permanent leadership.”

The White House is unlikely to send another FDA nominee to Capitol Hill if Califf can’t clinch 50 votes, noted Grossman, a former HHS and Senate staffer.

In that scenario, the current acting FDA chief, Dr. Janet Woodcock, could continue leading the agency for months to come — potentially into next year. She can serve as acting commissioner as long as Califf’s nomination is pending, followed by another 210 days after it is withdrawn or expires, under federal law.

[….]

Last week Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., announced her support for Califf after he agreed to not work for any pharmaceutical company for at least four years after leaving the FDA. Califf has recently served as a board director or adviser to more than a half-dozen drug and biotech companies, according to his ethics disclosure form.

“I think all this publicity that ‘maybe Califf isn’t going to make it’ is going to get people more focused on why they want Califf there,” said Diana Zuckerman, of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research. “I think he still has a very good chance.”

To read the entire article, click here.

Comments on CMS’s Proposed Decision Memo on Screening for Lung Cancer with Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT)

Policy, Testimony & Briefings, , ,

December 17, 2021

We agree that former smokers would benefit from a higher rate of low dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening. However, we are concerned with several major aspects of the Proposed Decision Memo’s discussion of Counseling and Shared Decision-Making.

  1. We urge CMS to amend language in the final draft of the Decision Memo to more accurately reflect the science-based evidence. The proposed memo currently reads that “Professional societies and provider groups have noted that providers have gained considerable experience and expertise and believe flexibility will reduce burden.” However, there is no evidence that providers have become better at counseling and shared decision-making regarding LDCT; on the contrary, there is evidence that there is already too much flexibility in how these discussions are framed. For example, research has found that shared decision-making conversations regarding LDCT focus on the advantages and rarely discuss the potential harms.[1] Healthcare providers spent less than a minute explaining the procedure and there was no evidence that decision aids were used. Patients deserve to make informed choices, and this is not possible under the current norms, which are too flexible. Rather than increase flexibility, CMS should provide explicit guidance for shared decision-making discussions on LDCT, such as requiring a checklist of key benefits and risks for the procedure that patients must sign after having read and discussed each point with their healthcare provider. For example, a decision-making tool could include a checklist that explains each benefit and risk in non-technical language, where the patient must initial each section to indicate that they read it, and then the physician must sign it to indicate the conversation took place, in the presence of the patient. In addition, any decision-making tool should highlight beneficiary eligibility criteria to ensure that patients who do not meet these criteria are aware that they are more likely to be harmed by LDCT screening.

 

  1. We urge that CMS maintain the requirement that shared decision-making conversations include a patient’s healthcare provider. Although research indicates that the decision-making conversations with physicians and non-physician practitioners are often inadequate, we believe the solution is to improve training for those conversations, rather than allowing health educators and others who are not healthcare experts to provide counseling and shared decision-making without the inclusion of healthcare professionals. Shared decisions regarding medical options should be made between a patient and a healthcare provider with whom they have an established relationship, which is generally their primary care physician. That is important because if there are any abnormal findings from the LDCT, it is the healthcare provider that the patient will need to follow-up with, not an educator. Shared decision making also provides an important opportunity to discuss smoking cessation options, which primary care physicians are best equipped to do. In summary, when patients engage in shared decision-making with their healthcare provider, that aids in informed decision-making while also helping ensure continuity of care. While health educators and others who are specifically trained to discuss the risks and benefits of LDCT can be an important addition to those doctor-patient conversations, spending more time with patients than physicians do and ensuring that patients clearly understand their options, they should not replace doctor-patient shared decision-making.

 

  1. We also urge that CMS reconsider its proposal to remove the specifications for the components of the shared decision-making tools. The agency justifies this change by stating that “the tools and guidance has matured since the early inception of shared decision-making.” We are not aware of evidence that the tools and guidance have matured, and ask CMS to provide guidance regarding decision-making tools that are based on peer-reviewed research-based articles.

 

  1. CMS also proposes removing the LDCT lung cancer screening registry requirement. We disagree with that proposal, since the ongoing revisions to guidance regarding LDCT screening can best be evaluated using a required registry.

As a final point, we question the assumptions that patients’ current low level of screening is a function of lack of flexibility in shared decision-making and of the criteria for eligibility. We believe it more likely that the major causes are:

  • Former smokers are aware that their smoking put them at risk of lung cancer and they are reluctant to get tested to find out they could have a fatal disease that they were warned about for years.
  • Former smokers who have friends or relatives that died of lung cancer are especially afraid of a diagnosis because they have seen the ravages of lung cancer.
  • Discussions about LDCT that extol the benefits and ignore the risks (which research indicates are typical of these conversations) are likely to be perceived as a sales pitch by skeptical patients. A more balanced conversation about what the procedure is like, the potential risks of screening, and what research says about the benefits is likely to be more effective.

NCHR firmly believes that patients deserve to make informed choices and need access to counseling and evidence-based shared decision-making tools in order to do so. For the reasons outlined above, we urge CMS to reconsider the proposed changes, to better ensure that patients receive accurate, balanced, unbiased information on whether or not they would benefit from LDCT screening.

References

  1. Brenner, A. T., Malo, T. L., Margolis, M., Lafata, J. E., James, S., Vu, M. B., & Reuland, D. S. (2018). Evaluating shared decision making for lung cancer screening. JAMA internal medicine, 178(10), 1311-1316.

Equal Access to Merck Covid Pill Imperiled by Prescribing Rules

In the News, We're In the News

Celine Castronuovo and Jeannie Baumann, Bloomberg Law: December 2, 2021

The potential for Merck & Co’s Covid-19 pill to stave off severe disease could be thwarted by prescription requirements that will make access more difficult for some of the hardest-hit Americans, health researchers say.

The drug gained a key recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee in a 13-10 vote. Merck’s antiviral drug molnupiravir—if authorized by the agency—would offer for the first time in the U.S. an at-home treatment option for patients with mild to moderate Covid-19 who are at risk of severe disease. The company says it expects its pill to work against the new omicron variant.

Molnupiravir, like all existing Covid-19 treatments, likely will only be available with a prescription. But that could pose a challenge for minority groups that disproportionately experience language, transportation, and other barriers that limit easy access to primary care providers.

Existing safety and efficacy data on molnupiravir didn’t take “into consideration the minority population that may not have full access to a primary care physician in order to receive a prescription in order to take the drug, aside from going to an emergency room,” Roblena Walker, a member of the FDA Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee, said at the Nov. 30 meeting after the vote.

The concerns further highlight health disparities that the pandemic brought to the forefront.

[….]

Access Barriers

Easy access to primary care services, economic stability, and other social factors can play a role in the rate of Covid-19 infection and the severity of illness among communities of color, policy analysts say. U.S. life expectancy dropped an average of 1.5 years during the pandemic but for Black Americans, it was 2.9 years—widening an existing gap between Black and White Americans.

People in the U.S. who are Black, Asian, or Native American are typically less likely to have a usual primary care provider, according to a 2019 annual health disparities report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Data from the report also showed that lacking health insurance makes people more likely to not visit a physician regularly.

All existing Covid-19 interventions, except for vaccines, need prescriptions before being administered, Diana Zuckerman, founder and president of the National Center for Health Research, noted.

“There’s every reason for this treatment to require prescription,” Zuckerman said. She noted the modest benefit molnupiravir showed in existing trial data—it reduces the risk of hospitalization or death among adults with mild to moderate disease by 30%—and the concerns that remain, including whether the antiviral pill could lead to additional mutations of Covid-19.

[….]

Affordability

Monoclonal antibodies, such as the ones from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Eli Lilly & Co., target the same patient population as molnupiravir, but they’re more expensive and must be administered in infusion centers.

The federal government should help make sure that cost doesn’t also present a barrier to Merck’s at-home treatment, Zuckerman said.

“If a decision is made to make this drug available, it should be available for free,” Zuckerman said. She added that community clinics “should have Covid testing there, and they should have access to this drug there in order to make it available to everybody who needs it.”

Zuckerman added that federal authorities’ goal for reducing drug access disparities should be to limit the costs patients, especially those without health insurance, would have to pay for the drug.

The federal government ordered about 3.1 million courses of molnupiravir to be made available to patients, with an option in its contract to purchase more than 2 million additional courses.

Target Population

Another obstacle to access is the limited research done on the drug’s impact on people with underlying conditions or other factors that may put them at greater risk for infection and serious illness from Covid-19.

Heart disease, a chronic illness, or some other condition that weakens a person’s immune system makes them more vulnerable to severe Covid-19 illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FDA committee members, including those who voted in favor of recommending the Merck pill, addressed the need for more specific data to determine if molnupiravir could benefit these at-risk groups.

“There needs to be studies in vaccinated individuals, studies in those with prior infection, studies in immunocompromised, particularly to understand safety,” Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee chair Lindsey Baden said Nov. 30.

Given the Merck trial’s focus on unvaccinated individuals, the federal government could ultimately decide to restrict treatment access to those who are at higher risk and who have not gotten a Covid-19 shot— a move Zuckerman said could spark “tremendous political backlash.”

“People at high risk who are unvaccinated are unvaccinated, for the most part, because they didn’t want to get vaccinated,” she said. She added that making the drug available only for this population could prompt criticism because “nobody wants to encourage people to be not vaccinated.”

While an antiviral Covid-19 drug may not bring substantial benefits for all Americans, Zuckerman said getting tested for free at community clinics and getting vaccinated are among the other options available to stay protected against Covid-19 for those who are uninsured and without a primary care provider.

“The bottom line is for people without insurance, getting vaccinated is, by far, the best thing they can do,” she said.

To read the entire article, click here.

Biden’s Drug Agency Nominee Returns With Deeper Industry Ties

In the News, We're In the News,

Alex Ruoff, Jeannie Baumann and Celine Castronuovo, Bloomberg Business: November 23, 2021

President Joe Biden’s choice to lead the Food and Drug Administration made millions of dollars from health and drug companies since his last stint in government, raising new questions about his ties to firms the agency oversees.

Robert Califf was paid $2.7 million by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet Inc., and sits on the boards of two pharmaceutical companies, AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals PLC. He also reported ties to 16 other research organizations and biotech companies, ethics and financial disclosure documents show.

Califf’s deep industry ties have prompted at least two Democratic senators to oppose his nomination, complicating his path to confirmation and echoing concerns that emerged when he was last nominated. While Califf previously was paid largely as a consultant for drugmakers before, in recent years he’s been hired as a top adviser and board member to major health-care companies creating innovative technologies and medicines.

[….]

Consulting, Stock Options

Califf’s reported income from the health industry skyrocketed between stints at the FDA.

Califf was a paid consultant for Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, AstraZeneca PLC, and Eli Lilly from 2009 to 2016, according to disclosures compiled by ProPublica. During this time he collected fees ranging from $2,160 to $9,000. Califf had also disclosed accepting consulting fees from drugmakers Amgen Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., and Merck & Co.

After his time leading the FDA, Califf earned $56,299 in fees from the biopharmaceutical firm Cytokinestics Inc. and unvested stock options worth as much as $5 million from Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Califf is an expert in clinical trial research and cardiovascular medicine and founded the Duke Clinical Research Institute, a large academic center that received more than half its funding from the drug industry.

This kind of expertise is almost impossible to acquire without working with or for the pharmaceutical industry, David Magnus, director Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, said. Drugmakers have historically provided the funding for most clinical trials, he said.

[….]

During his first tour at the FDA, Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Califf, said.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, said.

He may have more ties to track this time.

“It seems he would have to recuse himself from a large number of decisions,” Lisa Bero, chief scientist for the University of Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities, said.

Califf’s years of ties to the pharmaceutical industry don’t seem to have been “a deciding factor” in the White House’s nomination decision, Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, said in an interview with Bloomberg Law.

“Dr. Califf has these other very important, positive attributes of having been FDA commissioner, having been a high-level person at FDA even before he was commissioner, and having a track record of showing his commitment to scientific evidence,” Zuckerman said.

The plan offered by Califf to manage his financial interest appears to fairly standard and routine, New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan said. “I don’t find it disqualifying that he has industry ties,” he said, adding that he’s breaking ties with for-profit, academia, and other think tank types of organizations. Califf “showed himself to be independent and fair” when he was last at the agency, Caplan said.

To read the entire article, click here.

The road ahead for Califf’s confirmation

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

Marisa Fernandez, Axios and Yahoo News: November 15, 2021

It’s taken about 10 months for President Biden to name a nominee for the role of permanent FDA commissioner — former FDA chief Robert Califf — and it’s unlikely his confirmation will be complete before the end of 2021.

Why it matters: The agency has been without a Senate-approved commissioner for nearly a year, all while playing a central role in the response to the ongoing COVID pandemic.

The selection of the former commissioner came after the White House dropped several prior candidates, including acting commissioner Janet Woodcock, who faced strong opposition over her pharmaceutical ties, the New York Times reports.

[….]

What to watch: Califf was confirmed in 2016 by an 89-4 vote, but he’ll still face some questions over his ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin, Ed Markey and Richard Blumenthal, who voted against Califf last time, all reiterated their concern on Friday.

  • He was the founding director of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, where he worked closely with drug companies and received consulting fees prior to his first stint as FDA commissioner. More recently, he’s served as a senior adviser for Verily and Google Health.
  • “The public has been asking if they can trust the FDA to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks for Alzheimer’s drugs, cancer treatments, and implanted devices,” Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, a non-partisan non-profit think tank, told Axios.

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.

Biden Picks Robert Califf to Head the FDA for a Second Time

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

Chloe Tenn, The Scientist: November 12, 2021

President Joe Biden announced today (November 12) his nomination of Robert Califf for the role of commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration. Califf previously helmed the FDA for the Obama administration in 2016, but many of his plans were left unfinished during his 10-month tenure, reports STAT. His nomination will need to be confirmed by the Senate before he can assume the position again.

While commissioner, Califf made efforts toward reforming medical digital data systems and regulating tobacco products like e-cigarettes, according to STAT. Some of his initiatives, such as creating a collaborative organization to collect and distribute medical data nationally and improving the FDA hiring system, did not take effect.

After leaving the FDA commissioner position in 2017, Califf joined Verily, a biotechnology company with the same parent company as Google. There he led efforts to streamline and modernize clinical trials and medical data collection. He was also a consultant for pharmaceutical companies like Merck, Biogen, and Genentech, reports The New York Times.

[….]

Diana Zuckerman, the president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, tells the Times that “It is surprising that the White House has seemed really tone-deaf on conflicts of interest and very close ties to the industry.”

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.