Category Archives: In the News

7 things to know about bad COVID-19 tests

In the News, We're In the News

Kris Pickel, CBS 5, July 29, 2021

PHOENIX (3TV/CBS 5) — A confusing part of the pandemic may have a simple explanation.

People who showed symptoms of COVID-19, but tested negative for the infection or antibodies, may have taken a bad test. False negatives and false positives are a problem with both diagnostic and antibody tests. Flu-like symptoms developed into severe breathing issues for Brian Corte, sending him to the hospital.

[….]

He still does not know if he ever had coronavirus. Brian’s story may sound familiar to a lot of people. Under an accelerated process meant to help fight the pandemic, unreliable tests flooded the market. Nineteen tests to diagnose active covid infections and hundreds of antibodies tests have been placed on a “Should No Longer Be Used” list by the FDA.

Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) versus FDA Approval

At the beginning of the pandemic, there were no products approved to treat or diagnose COVID-19 due to the fact it is a new virus. To deal with the public health emergency, the FDA allowed products on the market to diagnose, treat or prevent COVID-19 under Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs). EUAs are used when a product’s ‘benefits outweigh the risks.’ A significantly lower standard than the FDA’s ‘approval’ process. For example, in the case of a new drug, the FDA’s approval process includes research, multiple studies, an application process, labeling approval, and inspections of manufacturing facilities.

Under the lower standards of the EUA, tests to diagnose active COVID-19 infections were allowed to go on the market without passing the FDA’s standard approval process but had to submit a EUA application to the FDA within three weeks. This allowed tests to be put on the market faster but without prior review from the FDA. The FDA allowed antibody tests on the market with no requirements for EUAs. The result? Fake and unreliable antibody tests flooded the market, and the policy was revised to require EUA applications for antibody tests within two weeks. The FDA acknowledged their attempts to be flexible in dealing with the public health emergency led to unreliable tests:

“… flexibility never meant we would allow fraud. We, unfortunately, see unscrupulous actors marketing fraudulent test kits and using the pandemic as an opportunity to take advantage of Americans’ anxiety. Some test developers have falsely claimed their serological tests are FDA approved or authorized. Others have falsely claimed that their tests can diagnose COVID-19 or that they are for at-home testing…” By: Anand Shah, M.D., Deputy Commissioner for Medical and Scientific Affairs, and Jeff Shuren, M.D., Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

Dr. Diana Zuckerman is president of the National Center for Health Research in Washington, DC., a non-profit think tank focused on public health policy. Her article “Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) Versus FDA Approval: Implications for COVID-19 and Public Health” points out hundreds of medical products were rushed to market under EUAs, including COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostic and antibody tests, treatments, and personal protective equipment.

EUAs are supposed to expire when the public health emergency ends, but that is not always the case. There are still EUAs in place from years ago, including some used for Ebola, Zika, and Swine Flu.

Dr. Zuckerman is concerned that when it comes to COVID-19, standards for tests remain inconsistent and unproven products may remain on the market without meeting the standards to earn FDA approval.

“Going forward, we need to know which treatments are the best. Without FDA approval, the standards are just not high enough to be able to tell us that information,” says Dr. Zuckerman. This investigation set out to answer several questions.

[….]

Has the FDA reviewed the research on all the tests that have been submitted for EUAs?

No. As of June 2021, the FDA website lists about 360 tests that had been given EUAs. Another 300 tests have EUA applications the FDA has not yet review.

How many tests are on the FDA’s “Should No Longer Be Used List”?

At the time of this article, 19 diagnostic tests, and 267 antibody tests. Tests can be placed on this list for various reasons, including failure to apply for an EUA within the proper time frame or if a significant problem is identified. Some manufacturers voluntarily withdrew their notifications that they intended to manufacture a test. Those tests are also included in the list.

Are some tests with EUAs more accurate than others?

Yes. Tests have different levels of both accuracy and sensitivity. We compared two tests used to diagnose an active COVID-19 infection and found one was 3,000 more sensitive in detecting COVID-19 than the other. Both tests have EUAs.

[….]

Is there a way to find out if my COVID-19 diagnostic test is accurate?

This is a tough one. According to Dr. Zuckerman, the best way to know if your test is accurate is to get a second test, especially if your first test was a rapid test. Antigen tests (rapid tests) can return results in as little as 15 minutes. PCR tests are more reliable, but the turnaround for results can take days.

To read the entire article, click here.

Beleaguered FDA in talks for drug-company funding

In the News, , ,

Eleanor Laise, Marketwatch: July 13, 2021

Amid a firestorm over its approval of a new Alzheimer’s treatment, the Food and Drug Administration is holding closed-door meetings with companies it regulates — talks that critics say allow drug and device makers to exert outsize influence over the agency’s operations, threatening to erode public trust in the agency at a critical moment.

The talks focus on “user fees” that pharmaceutical and medical-device companies pay to the FDA annually and when applying for approval of new products. The FDA in recent years has become increasingly reliant on such payments, which funded nearly half of the agency’s total spending in fiscal year 2020. In exchange for the fees, the FDA agrees to certain deadlines for reviewing new-product applications, the type and frequency of meetings with companies submitting applications, and other commitments. The medical-product user-fee agreements are generally renegotiated every five years — a process that’s happening now, in advance of the current agreements’ expiration next year — and submitted to Congress for authorization.

Although the FDA is required by law to consult with patient and consumer advocacy groups on the discussions and make minutes of its industry meetings public, the meat of the talks often remains hidden, observers say. Since September of last year, the FDA has held more than 150 meetings with industry to discuss fee agreements for brand-name prescription drugs, generics, medical devices and biosimilars (products similar to branded biologic drugs), which together are expected to generate nearly $2 billion for the agency this fiscal year. Yet consumer advocates and other outside groups attempting to track the discussions say they remain in the dark about most of the details. FDA summaries of some recent meetings have been posted months after the fact or sum up a discussion in a single sentence. Medical-product safety experts say they’ve repeatedly asked for more access and details on the negotiations, to no avail.

“We simply can’t get a view into this process, and the lack of transparency is deliberate,” says Madris Kinard, a former public health analyst at the FDA and CEO of Device Events, which tracks medical-device adverse-event reports.

Details about the negotiations that have trickled out raise alarms among some medical-product safety experts, academic researchers and consumer advocates that the industry’s leverage in these talks ultimately puts patients at risk. User fees are speeding more products to market without a corresponding increase in resources to track the safety of those products, critics say. Yet in the current round of negotiations, FDA efforts to allocate more user fees toward monitoring the safety of medical products already on the market have met industry resistance.

[….]

The main idea behind the user-fee programs was to speed up FDA review of medical-product marketing applications — and they’ve delivered on that front. The median time to approval for standard new-drug applications was 10 months in fiscal 2018. In the years before user fees were first enacted, the median FDA application review time was nearly three years, according to a study by Kesselheim and colleagues at Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

[….]

But user-fee deadlines can have serious side effects, some experts say. As the opioid crisis was exploding, “there was a question of ‘Why does the FDA keep approving the opioids?’ ” says a former FDA official. “One reason was that they had applications and had user-fee obligations to review the applications.” So long as an application met the standard requirements, “it would be approved,” he says. “That’s an example of the mindset” created by the deadlines.

Several studies have linked faster drug-approval timelines to safety issues. A 2014 study in Health Affairs found that drugs approved after user fees were enacted were more likely to get new black-box warnings or be withdrawn from the market than drugs approved in the pre-user-fee era. Other studies have found that, compared with drugs approved at other times, drugs given the green light shortly before their user-fee deadlines were more likely to have subsequent safety issues.

[….]

In the current round of medical-device user-fee negotiations, one of the FDA’s goals is to improve device safety, including through increased funding for surveillance of devices already on the market, the agency says. That proposal met stiff resistance from the industry, according to outside groups that have received FDA briefings on the talks. At an April 7 negotiation meeting, the industry expressed the view that fees “should be solely for the premarket review process,” according to a summary posted by FDA. Medical-device trade group AdvaMed didn’t respond to requests for comment.

At the start of the prescription-drug user-fee negotiations, the FDA also emphasized its hope of improving the Sentinel Initiative, a system for assessing the safety of approved medical products. But a related proposal advanced by the FDA during the negotiations was shot down by the industry, a December meeting summary notes.  

[….]

Revolving doors

“There’s not a lot of friction between the industry and the agency” in prescription-drug user-fee negotiations, says a former FDA official. “The industry knows it’s getting good value.”

A sign of the amicable relations: One FDA official leading the current round of prescription-drug user-fee negotiations left the agency in April of this year, according to her LinkedIn profile, to become vice president of science and regulatory affairs at BIO — one of the industry groups she’d just been negotiating with. The former FDA official, Khushboo Sharma, participated in a user-fee negotiation meeting with BIO and other industry representatives as recently as Feb. 12, according to meeting summaries posted by the agency. “That is obviously an outrageous situation and clearly undermines the integrity” of the process, says Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, a nonprofit think tank.

Asked for comment, the FDA sent a link to its post-employment restrictions, which say in part that current employees who have begun seeking employment outside the federal government must immediately recuse from certain matters that affect “the discrete industry, economic sector, or other defined class of organizations in which the prospective employer operates.” BIO didn’t respond to a request for comment. Sharma says that she worked with FDA ethics officials “to ensure I was recusing myself from all appropriate activities. I started seeking post-employment opportunities after negotiations had concluded.”

When the agency’s position does conflict with an industry’s, the FDA “is not going to come out on top,” says Lisa McGiffert, a patient-safety advocate at the nonprofit Patient Safety Action Network. Given the industry’s track record of snagging many items on its wish list, some observers are concerned that the current round of negotiations could chip away at FDA standards for approving new drugs. One issue: the use of “real-world data,” which can come from insurance claims, medical records, disease registries and other sources beyond the bounds of clinical trials. In an August 2020 letter to the FDA about user-fee reauthorization, PhRMA said that real-world data and evidence “may, in some circumstances, be adequate on their own to satisfy the substantial evidence criteria for demonstrating effectiveness” of drugs.

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.

My breast implants are making me sick — and I’m not alone

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

Pamela Appea, Salon: June 20, 2021

In November 2016, a few weeks after I had breast implant surgery, I came down with an unexpected case of thrush (an unappealing fungal infection characterized by a thick white coating on my tongue). As a Black married mother of two, even though I was still sick, I tried — but failed — to power through and take care of my kids. With intense flu-like aches, pain, and fever, it hurt to eat, drink, swallow, or even open my mouth. I couldn’t properly brush my teeth for several days.

Unfortunately, my primary care physician was on vacation. Panicked, I called the Manhattan oncologist whom I had seen a few weeks earlier. He’d been very kind to me following my DCIS breast cancer diagnosis, unilateral mastectomy and post-surgical treatment. The officer’s medical team could barely understand me when I tried to make the appointment on the phone.

“I don’t think you have thrush — didn’t I just see you a few weeks ago?” he said, trying to put me at ease as I stared at his cheerful neon tie. (I think he prided himself on his fun ties.)

It was torture opening my mouth so the doctor could diagnose me.

“Okay, that’s the worst case of thrush I’ve seen in some time,” the seasoned specialist said. He said he was putting me on antibiotics stat. I asked — or rather, wrote on a notepad, since I couldn’t speak clearly — if there could be any connection between the my immune system and the very new breast implant that was now in my body. The oncologist emphatically dismissed the notion as impossible.

Once he got the results of my lab work back, my physician said there was no evidence of anything wrong; I should bounce back in a few days. “These things sometimes happen,” he told me, smiling as he ushered me out.

While the antibiotics eventually cleared up the thrush, unfortunately I have never fully bounced back. In subsequent years since my breast implants were put in, it became even more clear that something was going on with my immune system. But none of my doctors really listened.

Although it was not formerly recognized by the medical community until recently, Breast Implant Illness (BII) has, in the past few years, finally received attention from both media and researchers. Nicole Daruda founded a Facebook’s support group, called Breast Implant Illness Healing by Nicole, in 2013; now, it boasts over 145,000 members. Daruda tentatively estimates that 50,000 women in the US have BII, although precise research-backed numbers are not readily available

“We are overwhelmed by women trying to join the Facebook group to be educated about Breast Implant Illness,” Daruda said. She estimates that 3,000 to 5,000 women message the group’s moderators every month. To try to meet the demand, Daruda later founded a nonprofit, Healing Breast Implant Illness Society of North America.

Research is just barely starting to emerge on BII. One study, published in Annals of Plastic Surgery in 2020, followed 750 women suffering from Breast Implant Illness over a multi-year time period. Once these women surgically removed their breast implants, the vast majority reported the majority of their symptoms had significantly improved or disappeared entirely.

Awareness appears to be growing, too. A wave of celebrities are talking more openly about breast implants and their health and wellness — including Victoria Beckham, Ayesha Curry, Ashley Tisdale, Chrissy Teigen and others.

A documentary that touches on the subject of BII, “Explant,” is screening right now at the Tribeca Film Festival. The film follows Michelle Visage, one of the celebrity judges on “RuPaul’s Drag Race.” Visage, a media personality, singer, DJ and actor who was well known for her signature Double-D breasts, found that doctors didn’t take her seriously when she told the specialists her immune system was out of whack. Visage experienced chronic health issues, including Hashimoto’s disease, that she now attributes to her breast implants.

Awareness of BII is crucial given the popularity of breast implants. Since 1998, the number of breast augmentation procedures in the US has increased threefold; now, they are one of the most sought-out cosmetic procedures.

“The desire for breast augmentation seems so powerful regardless of what else is going on in the world,” said Dr. Diana Zuckerman, founder of the National Center for Health Research. “What most concerns me is how reluctant most plastic surgeons have been to make sure their patients know the risks before making a decision.”

Because breast implant technology has existed for decades, many women erroneously believe they are safe.

[….]

In the years after my implant, some of my symptoms mirrored women on support groups I found online, which is how I figured out I had Breast Implant Illness. While symptoms sometimes waxed and waned, I got used to experiencing a host of autoimmune and other symptoms like insomnia, brain fog, extreme breathlessness, cuts that took weeks to heal, rashes, frequent colds and much more.

But BII is no longer regarded as a myth. Many or even most doctors, including plastic surgeon Dr. Anthony Youn, believe Breast Implant Illness is real. Dr. Youn acknowledges it is a controversial topic among many of his fellow American plastic surgeons.

“If you’re happy with your breast implants and you don’t believe they are adversely affecting your health, then there is no need for treatment. If you are sick and believe your implants may be the cause, speak with your primary care physician and a board-certified plastic surgeon about whether explantation may be a possible solution for you,” Dr Youn said. “There are many causes of the symptoms of Breast Implant Illness (BII) that don’t involve breast implants, so it’s often best to rule those out first,” he continued.

In his 17 years of practice in the metro Detroit region, Dr. Youn, a member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and The Aesthetic Society, has performed surgery on thousands of women who elected to get breast implants. Anecdotally, he estimates the number patients who later returned to his practice stating they had Breast Implant Illness symptoms is an extremely small percentage.

[….]

Though not all women with breast implants go on to develop Breast Implant Illness, all women deserve education, informed consent, insurance coverage and most important information about potential risks. If, in 2015, there had been an FDA Breast Implant Black Box Warning (which was officially unveiled in late 2020), I honestly never would have gotten breast implants in the first place.

To read the entire article, click here.

Emergency Use Authorization vs. Full Approval: What are the Implications?

In the News, We're In the News, , ,

Laurie Saloman, Contagion Live: June 20, 2021

Emergency use authorizations, or EUAs, have gotten a lot of attention during the COVID-19 pandemic. The concept of the U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA) authorizing a product or treatment quickly and without going through a full and complete review process was first introduced in 2005. At that time, the FDA issued an EUA for an anthrax vaccine available to military personnel due to a spate of anthrax-laced letters that killed or sickened nearly 2 dozen people.

Over the following years, EUAs were issued for a variety of experimental therapies for diseases such as H1N1 (swine flu), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Ebola, and Zika, which often arose quickly and threatened to become bona fide pandemics. Since last year, numerous EUAs have been issued for COVID-19-related products, including diagnostic and antibody tests, clinical treatments, and vaccines.

But what does it actually mean when a product is given an EUA, and why don’t companies automatically seek full FDA approval? According to Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research, there are several reasons why a company might not pursue approval for a product.

“One [reason] is that it’s found to not work, and so no effort is made to get it approved, and the other is that the company doesn’t necessarily have the incentive to do the research that they would need to do in order to get it approved, because the standards for an EUA are always lower than the standards would be for FDA approval,” she said. “If FDA approval would require a bigger, longer-term study with more patients, that just may not be worth it.” She offered the example of EUAs for various therapies for the Ebola virus, which does not currently present a threat to the US.

Even if a company wants to receive full approval for a product, it can run into problems if it can’t find enough of a patient population to participate in large-scale trials, added Susan Wood, PhD, professor of Health Policy and of Environmental and Occupational Health at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health and the former Assistant Commissioner for Women’s Health at the FDA.

Zuckerman and Wood agreed that, ideally, companies producing therapies that receive EUAs would go on to pursue approval for these therapies, especially as approved therapies can sometimes be repurposed to work for conditions other than those for which they were initially intended. “The reason why we were able to move…quickly with Covid was because of the work that had been done with other coronaviruses previously, and that really set the stage,” Zuckerman said. “Whether it’s for a rare disease or a future pandemic that we can’t predict, yes, having more information now can help us later.”

For companies, having full approval provides a measure of control. The FDA can withdraw an EUA at any time, preventing a company from selling or dispensing their product; in contrast, it can take several years for the agency to rescind an approval. Insurance typically doesn’t pay for products under an EUA, although in the case of Covid-19 vaccines the government is footing the bill, possibly making financial motives less of a factor for pharmaceutical companies.

But while EUAs are designed to help people get immediate assistance, it’s not uncommon for tests or therapies granted EUAs to end up being ineffective. In the case of COVID-19 tests and treatments, the FDA issued EUAs it later revoked. For example, in March of 2020, companies were permitted to sell antibody tests—which purported to tell users whether or not they had COVID-19 in the past—without submitting EUA applications. In May of 2020, companies were allowed to sell COVID-19 diagnostic tests for 15 business days before they had to submit EUA applications. During that month, the FDA issued 84 EUAs for various labs and companies, and there were an additional 400 applications pending review.

But by February of 2021, enough data on testing had been collected for the FDA to reject 225 different antibody tests. Similarly, although the FDA had granted EUA status to the drug hydroxychloroquine in March of 2020, by June of 2020 it was clear from studies that the drug not only had no discernible benefit but might even be harmful to Covid-19 patients, and the EUA was withdrawn in June 2020.

The lack of full approval by the FDA has been cited as a factor in the reluctance of some people to get the Covid-19 vaccine and has emerged as a flashpoint in the fight over vaccine mandates. Typically, mandates come after years of experience with a vaccine. “Normally…the testing is slower, the back and forth between the FDA and companies is slower, the review process is slower, and it comes on the market in a graduated fashion,” Wood said. At that point, there’s much more acceptance by the general population. “Now, everything’s been compressed, including EUA, and we’re moving straight into mandates by businesses.”

Read the original article here.

The Role of Environmental Regulations in the Fight Against Cancer

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

NYC NPR, May 10, 2021

Last month, President Biden announced he wanted to boost funding for research on cancer and other diseases. But experts say that the fight against cancer will be tough to win if there isn’t also a focus on preventing the disease by regulating carcinogens. The Environmental Protection Agency has historically been slow to act on known carcinogens and much more research is needed to find out exactly which toxins are making us sick.

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, joined The Takeaway to discuss what it would take to win the war on cancer.

To listen, click on the play button on https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/role-environmental-regulations-fight-against-cancer

Biden’s ‘end cancer’ pledge begs for environmental oversight

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

Ariel Wittenberg, E&E News: May 4, 2021

President Biden pledged last week to “end cancer as we know it,” a bold promise focused on boosting funding to the National Institutes of Health for a special Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health.

ARPA-H would be similar to the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, acting as a technology incubator by funding high-potential, high-impact projects that are too early for private-sector investment, but with the “singular purpose to develop breakthroughs to prevent, detect and treat” diseases.

“I can think of no more worthy investment. I know of nothing that is more bipartisan,” Biden told Congress last week. “So let’s end cancer as we know it. It’s within our power. It’s within our power to do it.”

But public health experts who have spent their careers examining environmental causes of cancer say it may not be possible to truly stop cancer without EPA stepping in.

The agency has been infamously slow to stop the use of known carcinogens for decades. Those include benzene, arsenic and asbestos, which is responsible for 40,000 deaths per year alone.

“We know that several chemicals are known to cause cancer in humans and others are highly suspect,” said Bob Sussman, an attorney and former EPA official now representing multiple groups in asbestos litigation against the agency. “There are many causes of cancer, but if we don’t address chemicals, we won’t get the job done.”

EPA could help Biden on his mission if it were faster to regulate not just asbestos but also PFOA, phthalates and bisphenol A, said Linda Birnbaum, who formerly led the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Listening to Biden’s address to Congress, she said, she was happy to hear the president “talking about major changes in how society functions.”

“But the focus was on treatment and cures,” she said. “I’m not opposed to treatment and cures, but I think it’s better to prevent if you can.”

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, agreed that the nation needs a “two-pronged attack” to end cancer.

“You can’t talk about even reducing cancer without talking about environmental toxins,” she said.

She noted that while Biden did mention a need to research cancer “prevention” during his speech, the medical community often refers to cancer screenings as prevention.

“Screening isn’t prevention; it’s early detection. You’ve already got the cancer; we just found it early,” she said. “If you want to prevent it, you have to deal with what causes it in the environment.”

Asked whether EPA sees a role in Biden’s quest to “end cancer as we know it,” the agency responded only, “EPA is fully on board with President Biden’s agenda.”

It’s not exactly clear what that means. Biden did not mention a role for the agency during the cancer portion of his speech to Congress. But the president’s quest to end cancer is famously motivated by his late son, Beau Biden, who died of glioblastoma in 2015.

[….]

Margaret Kripke, a professor of immunology at the University of Texas’ MD Anderson Cancer Center who has been studying the environmental causes of cancer for years, served on the President’s Cancer Panel in the early 2000s. The culmination of her work on the panel was a report on environmental causes of cancer that said “the true burden of environmentally-induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.”

The paper also took aim at EPA, complaining that “ubiquitous chemicals,” like bisphenol A, were still found in many consumer goods despite growing evidence of links to cancer.

“Not a whole lot has changed since then,” Kripke told E&E News last week, “except that we do know more about cancer and how it works, and how chemical exposures work.”

Unfortunately, she and Birnbaum concur, not everyone agrees about what type of evidence is needed to prove a given chemical causes cancer.

[….]

Kripke said EPA might be empowered to regulate more carcinogens if there were more research, either in the lab or in epidemiological studies.

“I do think it’s on the regulatory agencies, because there are a lot of things that are clearly carcinogenic that are regulated in other countries that are not regulated here,” she said. “But at the end of the day, the agencies can only act on the basis of information, and that information ultimately comes from the research efforts.”

That’s where she hopes Biden’s new mission can help. She said cancer funding is often determined by panels of researchers, who themselves can be biased toward funding research similar to their own. If the purpose of an ARPA-H organization is to fund research that would have difficulty obtaining funding otherwise, she said, studies on the health impacts of chemicals could fit that bill.

“If they are going to have a little broader thinking about what is appropriate for funding than traditional panels made up of people doing current cancer research, then maybe there might be a better opportunity to propose studies on cancer-causing agents or chemicals,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment on whether, if approved by Congress, a new ARPA-H would emphasize environmental causes of cancer.

But Zuckerman said she is skeptical that an ARPA-H would mean more funding for research on environmental carcinogens. While ARPA-E, at the Department of Energy, does fund applied and demonstration research for new technologies — the kinds of work private companies don’t find economical — Zuckerman noted that the research is often then picked up and used by companies looking to make money.

“You may get a huge infusion of cash, and yay for that, but it is still within a system where, at the end, there are people who want to earn money off this research,” she said. “You can earn a lot more money off a cancer treatment than you can off reducing pollution.”

You can read the entire article here https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063731675

To Stay: Two More Cancer Indications With ‘Dangling Approvals’

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

Kerry Dooley Young, Medscape News: April 29, 2021

Two more cancer indications that had been granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are going to stay in place, at least for now. This was the verdict after the second day of a historic 3-day meeting (April 27–29) and follows a similar verdict from day one.

Federal advisers so far have supported the idea of maintaining conditional approvals of some cancer indications for a number of immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors, despite poor results in studies that were meant to confirm the benefit of these medicines for certain patients.

On the second day (April 28) of the 3-day FDA meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) supported the views of pharmaceutical companies in two more cases of what top agency staff call “dangling accelerated approvals.”

ODAC voted 10-1 in favor of maintaining the indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial.

ODAC also voted 5-3 that day in favor of maintaining accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for first-line cisplatin- and carboplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

The FDA often follows the advice of its panels, but it is not bound to do so. If the FDA were to decide to strip the indications in question from these PD-1 medicines, such decisions would not remove these drugs from the market. The three drugs have already been approved for a number of other cancer indications.

Off-label prescribing is not uncommon in oncology, but a loss of an approved indication would affect reimbursement for these medicines, Scot Ebbinghaus, MD, vice president of oncology clinical research at Merck & Co (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab), told ODAC members during a discussion.

[….]

Another participant at the meeting asked the panel and the FDA to consider the burden on patients in paying for medicines that have not yet been proven to be beneficial.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the ODAC panel included physicians who see cancer patients.

“You’re used to trying different types of treatments in hopes that something will work,” she said. “Shouldn’t cancer patients be eligible for free treatment in clinical trials instead of paying for treatment that isn’t proven to work?”

[….]

To read the entire article, see https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/950165

FDA Scrutinizes Pricey Cancer Drugs

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

Politico Pulse: April 28, 2021

What should be done about expensive cancer drugs on the market that might not work? That could be the first thorny question to confront Woodcock, who is acting FDA commissioner while Biden weighs whether to nominate her for the full-time role.

The FDA is convening an expert panel this week to discuss whether the agency should revoke approved uses of three therapies that, despite positive signs from early research, failed to help patients with certain cancers live longer. All three medicines were approved under Woodcock’s tenure as drug chief and after increasingly speedy reviews.

Drug regulators “wanted to get these drugs to market as quickly as possible,” said Diana Zuckerman, a drug safety expert and president of the National Center for Health Research, who is presenting several times at this week’s meeting. “That was clearly their goal and they succeeded in doing it. But now there is a reckoning.”

What the companies say: Genentech, Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb, the companies at the center of the debate, say their drugs still have value against the cancers in question, they just need to do more research. And Genentech on Tuesday applauded the advisory panel’s vote to keep its drug on the market for triple-negative breast cancer, one of the approvals in question.

To see the entire Politico Pulse, read https://www.politico.com/politicopulse/.

Can California’s public universities mandate COVID-19 vaccines?

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

Robert M. Kaplan and Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D., Monterey Herald: April 26, 2021

Last week, the University of California and the California State University system proposed mandating COVID-19 vaccines for faculty, staff, and students beginning in the fall.  Only those with medical conditions aggravated by vaccination or those with legitimate religious objections would be excused.  The policy is consequential: Public university students, faculty and staff include nearly 1,000,000 Californians. But is the mandate feasible? And, should the California universities dive headfirst into what promises to be a complicated controversy?

With waning competition for shots, public health officials now worry about vaccine hesitancy. Lower vaccination rates give more opportunities for variants to develop and could make the pandemic last longer. We all benefit when more people are vaccinated.  Yet, national polls by Stanford and YouGov show that about 20% of Americans will refuse to be vaccinated, and one in three estimate their likelihood of getting vaccinated is below 50%. Only 20% strongly agree that vaccines should be mandated and 45% report that vaccinations should be strictly voluntary.

Requiring vaccinations may be legal. Since 1905, courts have consistently upheld vaccination mandates, but with some exemptions.  Although 50 states and Washington D.C. can require vaccines for primary schools, all states allow medical exemptions.  Further, 45 states permit religious exemptions and 15 recognize philosophical objections.  Only 16 states allow post-secondary institutions to require vaccinations for influenza or hepatitis B.

Despite these precedents, the UC/CSU proposal could be derailed because current CDC policy only allows mandates for vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Technically, no COVID vaccine is currently approved. Instead, the three vaccines have been authorized under a different vetting mechanism called Emergency Use Authorization.  Unlike FDA approval, EUA is a temporary agreement that allows medical products to be used in emergency situations based on FDA’s determination that the benefits “may” outweigh the risks.  That requires a less rigorous standard of evidence than FDA approval. Before the pandemic, EUAs were only used to speed emergency treatments to a relatively small number of people threatened by Ebola, Zika, and anthrax.

To be fair, each of the three authorized (but unapproved) COVID vaccines underwent rigorous testing in large studies. However, the FDA had announced that full approval of these vaccines would require following study participants for “at least one to two years.”  For the EUA’s,  FDA permitted just two months of follow-up and stated that while two months was the minimum to determine safety, it wasn’t sufficient to determine how long the vaccines would be effective.

With the EUAs in hand and bolstered by promising early results and extremely high demand for vaccines, companies had no incentive to continue the trials. Despite advice by scientists to continue studies with the inclusion of a control group, all three companies provided the vaccine to participants who had received a placebo. The ethical reasons for this are obvious; however, the consequence is that a rigorous evaluation of the long-term benefits and side effects is no longer possible in the absence of a placebo control group.

What do we know about safety?  137 million Americans have had at least one dose of the vaccine.  Although at least half have experienced bothersome reactions, very few have reported serious side effects that resulted in permanent damage or death. The FDA and CDC have two systems to track real-world reactions. V-SAFE is an app that regularly asks vaccinated individuals to report any health problems. Unfortunately, very few individuals use it.  The other system, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is designed for health care providers to report bad reactions to vaccines.   As with V-SAFE, reporting is not enforced and therefore reactions are under-reported.  The current systems are limited because they were not designed to accurately determine how many people experience adverse events.

UC/CSU should be commended for proposing a bold strategy to address a serious problem.  A mandate to vaccinate university communities could turn the campuses into COVID safe zones. However, it is likely to encounter serious legal challenges if none of the vaccines are FDA approved before the mandate is implemented. Instead of waiting for the FDA to deny approval for insufficient evidence, the UC and CSU systems could use their exceptional creativity and research capability to produce better evidence that would inform the FDA about the long-term scientific safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.

Robert M. Kaplan is a faculty member at Stanford University’s Clinical Excellence Research Center and a former Associate Director of the National Institutes of Health. Diana M. Zuckerman is the President of the Washington DC-based National Center for Health Research. She is an expert on the safety and effectiveness of medical products. You can view the original article here. 

Conflicts Galore: Upcoming Accelerated Approval Cancer Panel May Be Tainted By Industry Relationships

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith, Pink Sheet: April 21, 2021

Six members of the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee received conflict of interest waivers to participate in the agency’s upcoming three-day meeting to review the accelerated approval of six checkpoint inhibitor indications after the three cancer immunotherapies at issue failed to confirm clinical benefit in post-market trials raising questions about whether industry influence may heavily factor in the committee’s decision making.

The high number of waivers could mean that a majority or close to a majority of the panelists will have conflicts based on the typical number of advisors on FDA panels. The agency used to be subject to waiver limits but the 2012 FDA Safety and Innovation Act removed these restrictions.

ODAC’s 27-29 April meeting, part of the agency’s broader industry-wide effort to evaluate accelerated approvals for oncology drugs, is unprecedented in the number of drugs and indications up for accelerated approval withdrawal. The committee will discuss two indications for Tecentriq (atezolizumab); three for Keytruda (pembrolizumab); and one for Opdivo (nivolumab).

[….]

Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist at the University of California San Francisco acknowledged that it may not always be easy to find unconflicted experts but, he said they do exist. He also argued that in this case you might be able to look at other professionals like internists who study research methods and FDA approvals, for example for panel members.

[….]

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research said that while FDA needs some people with clinical expertise who understand the illness and issues with the treatment, it doesn’t need an entire panel of these people. She said that one way FDA can find more qualified experts is by looking at schools of public health where academics rarely get money from industry and they have expertise in understanding clinical trials as well as biostatics.

Even if the academic’s salary isn’t directly funded by their work with industry, there are multiple reasons to be concerned that work on industry trials with the same drugs creates conflicts.

“There’s research showing that researchers feel more positively about drugs that they’ve studied. That’s normal human behavior. You feel proprietary towards something that you’ve studied. You also have a relationship with the company,” said Adrian Fugh-Berman a professor Pharmacology and Physiology at Georgetown where she directs PharmedOut, a project that focuses on evidence-based prescribing and studying industry marketing practices.

The person may also be thinking about how their behavior on the committee may impact other research opportunities the university or they in particular have with the company, she explained.

“Are you going to get more research grants for the company if you kill their drug?” Fugh-Berman said.

[….]

Over the past 12 months ODAC has had two other committee meetings where four waivers were granted but that is far from typical. Most agency advisory committees don’t have any waivers or at most have one or two, per data from FDA from 2018 onward.

FDA is supposed to publish an annual report to Congress on advisory committees that include information on waivers but the latest report available online was from fiscal year 2016. FDA did respond to questions about whether more updated data exists and where it can be found.

​To read the entire article, see https://pink.pharmaintelligence.informa.com/PS144196/Conflicts-Galore-Upcoming-Accelerated-Approval-Cancer-Panel-Includes-Many-Industry-Relationships