Kerry Dooley Young

About two-thirds of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) were able to return to an inactive disease state within 12 months after a flare occurred when they took a break from medication, and slightly more than half – 55% – reached this state within 6 months, according to findings from registry data examined in a study published in Arthritis Care & Research.

Sarah Ringold, MD, MS, of the Seattle Children’s Hospital, and coauthors used data from participants in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry to track what happened to patients when they took a break from antirheumatic drugs. They described their paper as being the first to use a large multicenter database such as the CARRA Registry to focus on JIA outcomes after medication discontinuation and flare, to describe flare severity after medication discontinuation, and to report patterns of medication use for flares.

“To date, JIA studies have established that flares after medication discontinuation are common but have generated conflicting data regarding flare risk factors,” Dr. Ringold and coauthors wrote. “Since it is not yet possible to predict reliably which children will successfully discontinue medication, families and physicians face uncertainty when deciding to stop medications, and there is significant variation in approach.”

The study will be “very helpful” to physicians working with parents and patients to make decisions about discontinuing medications, said Grant Schulert, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who was not involved with the study.

“It gives some numbers to help us have those conversations,” he said in an interview.

But interpreting those numbers still will present parents with a challenge, Dr. Schulert said.

“You can say: ‘The glass is half full; 55% of them could go back into remission in 6 months, a little bit higher in a year,’ ” he said. “Or the glass is half empty; some of them, even at a year, are still not back in remission.”

But “patients aren’t a statistic. They’re each one person,” he said. “They’re going to be in one of those two situations.”

There are many challenges in explaining the potential advantages and disadvantages of medication breaks to patients and families, said the study’s senior author, Daniel B. Horton, MD, MSCE, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and the Rutgers Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science, both in New Brunswick, N.J., and the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, N.J.

“One of the challenges of explaining the pros and cons about stopping medicines is the uncertainty – not knowing if and when a flare will occur, if and when a flare would be well controlled, and, for treatments that are continued, if and when complications of that treatment could occur,” Dr. Horton said in an interview. “Many patients and families are afraid about what the medicines might do long-term and want to stop treatment as soon as possible, despite the risks of stopping. Another challenge is that we do not yet have accurate, widely available tests that help us predict these various outcomes. Still, it is important for clinicians to explain the risks of continuing treatment and of stopping treatment, and to give patients and families time to ask questions and share their own values and preferences. If these conversations don’t happen, patients or families may just stop the medicines even if stopping is not warranted or is likely to lead to a poor outcome.”
 

Study details

Of the 367 patients studied, 270 (74%) were female. Half of all patients in the study had extended oligoarticular/rheumatoid factor (RF)–negative polyarticular JIA, and the second most common category was persistent oligoarthritis at 25%.The median age at disease onset was 4, with a range of 2-9 years.

The median age at disease flare was 11.3, with a range of 7.5-15.7 years. At the time of flare, children had a median disease duration of 5.1 years and had been off systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for a median of 205 days. In addition, at the time of flare, the median active joint count was 1 and the maximum active joint count was 33, and approximately 13% of children had 5 or more active joints.

Conventional synthetic DMARDs were the most commonly stopped medications (48%), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were second (42%), Dr. Ringold and coauthors wrote.

Independent predictors of successful recapture of inactive disease included TNFi as recapture medication and history of a non-TNFi biologic use.

Dr. Ringold and coauthors noted limitations of the registry-based study. This is “a convenience sample of patients who are cared for and consented at academic sites, and additional study may be needed to understand how these results generalize to other countries and health systems,” they wrote.

And there may have been misclassification and inclusion of patients who stopped medications for self-perceived well-controlled disease, they wrote.

“Although the intent was to include children who stopped their medications at their physician’s direction due to physician-confirmed inactive disease, patients who had been previously enrolled in the registry were included if inactive disease was listed as the reason for medication discontinuation,” they said.

Still, these results should serve as a “benchmark for future studies of medication discontinuation” in JIA, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Fortunate challenge’

In an accompanying editorial, Melissa L. Mannion, MD, MSPH, and Randy Q. Cron, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham noted that pediatric rheumatologists now face what they call the “fortunate challenge” of helping patients and parents decide whether treatments can be stopped in cases where there’s been a sustained period of inactive disease.

“Once a patient has reached the goal of inactive disease, why would patients or providers want to stop medications?” Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron wrote. “We tell our patients that we want them to be like everyone else and have no limitations on their goals. However, the burden of chronic medication to achieve that goal is a constant reminder that they are different from their peers.”

In their article, Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron noted what they called “interesting” results observed among children with different forms of JIA in the study.

Children with “systemic JIA had the highest recapture rates at 6 or 12 months, perhaps reflecting the high percentage use of [biologic] DMARDs targeting interleukin-1 and IL-6, or maybe the timeliness of recognition (e.g., fever, rash) of disease flare,” Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron wrote. “Conversely, children with JIA enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) had the lowest recapture rate at 6 months (27.6%, even lower than RF-positive polyarticular JIA, 42.9%).”

Still, the editorial authors said that “additional well-controlled studies are needed to move pediatric rheumatology deeper into the realm of precision medicine and the ability to decide whether or not to wean DMARD therapy for those with clinically inactive disease.”

Pamela Weiss, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in a comment that the study by Dr. Ringold and colleagues, as well as others that address similar questions, “are critically needed to move our field towards a personalized medicine approach.” But she added that while the paper from Dr. Ringold and colleagues addresses an important question, it “should be interpreted with some caution.”

She noted, for example, that “disease flare,” which prompted reinitiation of treatment and study entry, was not always aligned with a registry visit, which makes determination of the primary exposure less stringent. The rate of recapture across JIA categories differed by as much as 20% depending upon which inactive disease assessment outcome was used – either the study’s novel but unvalidated primary outcome or the validated secondary outcome of using the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score based on 10 joints. The resulting difference was marked for some JIA categories and minimal for others.

“The flare and recapture rates are likely to be vastly different for JIA categories with distinct pathophysiology – namely systemic JIA, psoriatic arthritis, and enthesitis-related arthritis,” Dr. Weiss said. “While numbers for these categories were too small to make meaningful conclusions, grouping them with the other JIA categories has limitations.”

The research was funded by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Innovative Research Award.

Dr. Ringold’s current employment is through Janssen Research & Development. She changed primary employment from Seattle Children’s to Janssen during completion of the analyses and preparation of the manuscript. She has maintained her affiliation with Seattle Children’s. Dr. Schulert has consulting for Novartis. Dr. Cron reported speaker fees, consulting fees, and grant support from Sobi, consulting fees from Sironax and Novartis, speaker fees from Lilly, and support from Pfizer for working on a committee adjudicating clinical trial side effects.

* This article was updated on 8/11/2022.

About two-thirds of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) were able to return to an inactive disease state within 12 months after a flare occurred when they took a break from medication, and slightly more than half – 55% – reached this state within 6 months, according to findings from registry data examined in a study published in Arthritis Care & Research.

Sarah Ringold, MD, MS, of the Seattle Children’s Hospital, and coauthors used data from participants in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry to track what happened to patients when they took a break from antirheumatic drugs. They described their paper as being the first to use a large multicenter database such as the CARRA Registry to focus on JIA outcomes after medication discontinuation and flare, to describe flare severity after medication discontinuation, and to report patterns of medication use for flares.

“To date, JIA studies have established that flares after medication discontinuation are common but have generated conflicting data regarding flare risk factors,” Dr. Ringold and coauthors wrote. “Since it is not yet possible to predict reliably which children will successfully discontinue medication, families and physicians face uncertainty when deciding to stop medications, and there is significant variation in approach.”

The study will be “very helpful” to physicians working with parents and patients to make decisions about discontinuing medications, said Grant Schulert, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who was not involved with the study.

“It gives some numbers to help us have those conversations,” he said in an interview.

But interpreting those numbers still will present parents with a challenge, Dr. Schulert said.

“You can say: ‘The glass is half full; 55% of them could go back into remission in 6 months, a little bit higher in a year,’ ” he said. “Or the glass is half empty; some of them, even at a year, are still not back in remission.”

But “patients aren’t a statistic. They’re each one person,” he said. “They’re going to be in one of those two situations.”

There are many challenges in explaining the potential advantages and disadvantages of medication breaks to patients and families, said the study’s senior author, Daniel B. Horton, MD, MSCE, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and the Rutgers Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science, both in New Brunswick, N.J., and the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, N.J.

“One of the challenges of explaining the pros and cons about stopping medicines is the uncertainty – not knowing if and when a flare will occur, if and when a flare would be well controlled, and, for treatments that are continued, if and when complications of that treatment could occur,” Dr. Horton said in an interview. “Many patients and families are afraid about what the medicines might do long-term and want to stop treatment as soon as possible, despite the risks of stopping. Another challenge is that we do not yet have accurate, widely available tests that help us predict these various outcomes. Still, it is important for clinicians to explain the risks of continuing treatment and of stopping treatment, and to give patients and families time to ask questions and share their own values and preferences. If these conversations don’t happen, patients or families may just stop the medicines even if stopping is not warranted or is likely to lead to a poor outcome.”
 

Study details

Of the 367 patients studied, 270 (74%) were female. Half of all patients in the study had extended oligoarticular/rheumatoid factor (RF)–negative polyarticular JIA, and the second most common category was persistent oligoarthritis at 25%.The median age at disease onset was 4, with a range of 2-9 years.

The median age at disease flare was 11.3, with a range of 7.5-15.7 years. At the time of flare, children had a median disease duration of 5.1 years and had been off systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for a median of 205 days. In addition, at the time of flare, the median active joint count was 1 and the maximum active joint count was 33, and approximately 13% of children had 5 or more active joints.

Conventional synthetic DMARDs were the most commonly stopped medications (48%), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were second (42%), Dr. Ringold and coauthors wrote.

Independent predictors of successful recapture of inactive disease included TNFi as recapture medication and history of a non-TNFi biologic use.

Dr. Ringold and coauthors noted limitations of the registry-based study. This is “a convenience sample of patients who are cared for and consented at academic sites, and additional study may be needed to understand how these results generalize to other countries and health systems,” they wrote.

And there may have been misclassification and inclusion of patients who stopped medications for self-perceived well-controlled disease, they wrote.

“Although the intent was to include children who stopped their medications at their physician’s direction due to physician-confirmed inactive disease, patients who had been previously enrolled in the registry were included if inactive disease was listed as the reason for medication discontinuation,” they said.

Still, these results should serve as a “benchmark for future studies of medication discontinuation” in JIA, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Fortunate challenge’

In an accompanying editorial, Melissa L. Mannion, MD, MSPH, and Randy Q. Cron, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham noted that pediatric rheumatologists now face what they call the “fortunate challenge” of helping patients and parents decide whether treatments can be stopped in cases where there’s been a sustained period of inactive disease.

“Once a patient has reached the goal of inactive disease, why would patients or providers want to stop medications?” Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron wrote. “We tell our patients that we want them to be like everyone else and have no limitations on their goals. However, the burden of chronic medication to achieve that goal is a constant reminder that they are different from their peers.”

In their article, Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron noted what they called “interesting” results observed among children with different forms of JIA in the study.

Children with “systemic JIA had the highest recapture rates at 6 or 12 months, perhaps reflecting the high percentage use of [biologic] DMARDs targeting interleukin-1 and IL-6, or maybe the timeliness of recognition (e.g., fever, rash) of disease flare,” Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron wrote. “Conversely, children with JIA enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) had the lowest recapture rate at 6 months (27.6%, even lower than RF-positive polyarticular JIA, 42.9%).”

Still, the editorial authors said that “additional well-controlled studies are needed to move pediatric rheumatology deeper into the realm of precision medicine and the ability to decide whether or not to wean DMARD therapy for those with clinically inactive disease.”

Pamela Weiss, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in a comment that the study by Dr. Ringold and colleagues, as well as others that address similar questions, “are critically needed to move our field towards a personalized medicine approach.” But she added that while the paper from Dr. Ringold and colleagues addresses an important question, it “should be interpreted with some caution.”

She noted, for example, that “disease flare,” which prompted reinitiation of treatment and study entry, was not always aligned with a registry visit, which makes determination of the primary exposure less stringent. The rate of recapture across JIA categories differed by as much as 20% depending upon which inactive disease assessment outcome was used – either the study’s novel but unvalidated primary outcome or the validated secondary outcome of using the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score based on 10 joints. The resulting difference was marked for some JIA categories and minimal for others.

“The flare and recapture rates are likely to be vastly different for JIA categories with distinct pathophysiology – namely systemic JIA, psoriatic arthritis, and enthesitis-related arthritis,” Dr. Weiss said. “While numbers for these categories were too small to make meaningful conclusions, grouping them with the other JIA categories has limitations.”

The research was funded by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Innovative Research Award.

Dr. Ringold’s current employment is through Janssen Research & Development. She changed primary employment from Seattle Children’s to Janssen during completion of the analyses and preparation of the manuscript. She has maintained her affiliation with Seattle Children’s. Dr. Schulert has consulting for Novartis. Dr. Cron reported speaker fees, consulting fees, and grant support from Sobi, consulting fees from Sironax and Novartis, speaker fees from Lilly, and support from Pfizer for working on a committee adjudicating clinical trial side effects.

* This article was updated on 8/11/2022.

About two-thirds of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) were able to return to an inactive disease state within 12 months after a flare occurred when they took a break from medication, and slightly more than half – 55% – reached this state within 6 months, according to findings from registry data examined in a study published in Arthritis Care & Research.

Sarah Ringold, MD, MS, of the Seattle Children’s Hospital, and coauthors used data from participants in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry to track what happened to patients when they took a break from antirheumatic drugs. They described their paper as being the first to use a large multicenter database such as the CARRA Registry to focus on JIA outcomes after medication discontinuation and flare, to describe flare severity after medication discontinuation, and to report patterns of medication use for flares.

“To date, JIA studies have established that flares after medication discontinuation are common but have generated conflicting data regarding flare risk factors,” Dr. Ringold and coauthors wrote. “Since it is not yet possible to predict reliably which children will successfully discontinue medication, families and physicians face uncertainty when deciding to stop medications, and there is significant variation in approach.”

The study will be “very helpful” to physicians working with parents and patients to make decisions about discontinuing medications, said Grant Schulert, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who was not involved with the study.

“It gives some numbers to help us have those conversations,” he said in an interview.

But interpreting those numbers still will present parents with a challenge, Dr. Schulert said.

“You can say: ‘The glass is half full; 55% of them could go back into remission in 6 months, a little bit higher in a year,’ ” he said. “Or the glass is half empty; some of them, even at a year, are still not back in remission.”

But “patients aren’t a statistic. They’re each one person,” he said. “They’re going to be in one of those two situations.”

There are many challenges in explaining the potential advantages and disadvantages of medication breaks to patients and families, said the study’s senior author, Daniel B. Horton, MD, MSCE, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and the Rutgers Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science, both in New Brunswick, N.J., and the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, N.J.

“One of the challenges of explaining the pros and cons about stopping medicines is the uncertainty – not knowing if and when a flare will occur, if and when a flare would be well controlled, and, for treatments that are continued, if and when complications of that treatment could occur,” Dr. Horton said in an interview. “Many patients and families are afraid about what the medicines might do long-term and want to stop treatment as soon as possible, despite the risks of stopping. Another challenge is that we do not yet have accurate, widely available tests that help us predict these various outcomes. Still, it is important for clinicians to explain the risks of continuing treatment and of stopping treatment, and to give patients and families time to ask questions and share their own values and preferences. If these conversations don’t happen, patients or families may just stop the medicines even if stopping is not warranted or is likely to lead to a poor outcome.”
 

Study details

Of the 367 patients studied, 270 (74%) were female. Half of all patients in the study had extended oligoarticular/rheumatoid factor (RF)–negative polyarticular JIA, and the second most common category was persistent oligoarthritis at 25%.The median age at disease onset was 4, with a range of 2-9 years.

The median age at disease flare was 11.3, with a range of 7.5-15.7 years. At the time of flare, children had a median disease duration of 5.1 years and had been off systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for a median of 205 days. In addition, at the time of flare, the median active joint count was 1 and the maximum active joint count was 33, and approximately 13% of children had 5 or more active joints.

Conventional synthetic DMARDs were the most commonly stopped medications (48%), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were second (42%), Dr. Ringold and coauthors wrote.

Independent predictors of successful recapture of inactive disease included TNFi as recapture medication and history of a non-TNFi biologic use.

Dr. Ringold and coauthors noted limitations of the registry-based study. This is “a convenience sample of patients who are cared for and consented at academic sites, and additional study may be needed to understand how these results generalize to other countries and health systems,” they wrote.

And there may have been misclassification and inclusion of patients who stopped medications for self-perceived well-controlled disease, they wrote.

“Although the intent was to include children who stopped their medications at their physician’s direction due to physician-confirmed inactive disease, patients who had been previously enrolled in the registry were included if inactive disease was listed as the reason for medication discontinuation,” they said.

Still, these results should serve as a “benchmark for future studies of medication discontinuation” in JIA, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Fortunate challenge’

In an accompanying editorial, Melissa L. Mannion, MD, MSPH, and Randy Q. Cron, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham noted that pediatric rheumatologists now face what they call the “fortunate challenge” of helping patients and parents decide whether treatments can be stopped in cases where there’s been a sustained period of inactive disease.

“Once a patient has reached the goal of inactive disease, why would patients or providers want to stop medications?” Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron wrote. “We tell our patients that we want them to be like everyone else and have no limitations on their goals. However, the burden of chronic medication to achieve that goal is a constant reminder that they are different from their peers.”

In their article, Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron noted what they called “interesting” results observed among children with different forms of JIA in the study.

Children with “systemic JIA had the highest recapture rates at 6 or 12 months, perhaps reflecting the high percentage use of [biologic] DMARDs targeting interleukin-1 and IL-6, or maybe the timeliness of recognition (e.g., fever, rash) of disease flare,” Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron wrote. “Conversely, children with JIA enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) had the lowest recapture rate at 6 months (27.6%, even lower than RF-positive polyarticular JIA, 42.9%).”

Still, the editorial authors said that “additional well-controlled studies are needed to move pediatric rheumatology deeper into the realm of precision medicine and the ability to decide whether or not to wean DMARD therapy for those with clinically inactive disease.”

Pamela Weiss, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in a comment that the study by Dr. Ringold and colleagues, as well as others that address similar questions, “are critically needed to move our field towards a personalized medicine approach.” But she added that while the paper from Dr. Ringold and colleagues addresses an important question, it “should be interpreted with some caution.”

She noted, for example, that “disease flare,” which prompted reinitiation of treatment and study entry, was not always aligned with a registry visit, which makes determination of the primary exposure less stringent. The rate of recapture across JIA categories differed by as much as 20% depending upon which inactive disease assessment outcome was used – either the study’s novel but unvalidated primary outcome or the validated secondary outcome of using the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score based on 10 joints. The resulting difference was marked for some JIA categories and minimal for others.

“The flare and recapture rates are likely to be vastly different for JIA categories with distinct pathophysiology – namely systemic JIA, psoriatic arthritis, and enthesitis-related arthritis,” Dr. Weiss said. “While numbers for these categories were too small to make meaningful conclusions, grouping them with the other JIA categories has limitations.”

The research was funded by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Innovative Research Award.

Dr. Ringold’s current employment is through Janssen Research & Development. She changed primary employment from Seattle Children’s to Janssen during completion of the analyses and preparation of the manuscript. She has maintained her affiliation with Seattle Children’s. Dr. Schulert has consulting for Novartis. Dr. Cron reported speaker fees, consulting fees, and grant support from Sobi, consulting fees from Sironax and Novartis, speaker fees from Lilly, and support from Pfizer for working on a committee adjudicating clinical trial side effects.

* This article was updated on 8/11/2022.

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel stressed the need for further research about potential expanded use of devices in detection of skin cancer, with U.S. regulators readying for challenges in determining how well these tools need to work and how to address longstanding issues of racial equity in this field of medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has scheduled two meetings to gather expert feedback about managing an expected expansion in the use of skin lesion apps and devices. Outside of the United States, there are apps promoted as being able to help spot skin lesions that should trigger a medical visit.

AGA Institute

The general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee began work on this topic on July 28, with a wide-ranging discussion about potential expanded use of computer-aided, skin lesion analyzer (SLA) devices. On Friday, the panel is considering an FDA proposal to shift the designation for an approved device for aiding dermatologists in skin cancer diagnoses from the most stringent regulatory category, class III, to the less restrictive class II.

The FDA called the meeting amid growing interest in using technology to aid in finding cancers, with some of these products already marketed to consumers outside of the United States. There are presently no legally marketed, FDA-cleared or FDA-approved SLA devices indicated for use by clinicians other than dermatologists or the lay public, the agency said in a briefing memo for the meeting. There are two devices with FDA approval, though, for aiding dermatologists. The FDA approved SciBase’s Nevisense in 2017 and Mela Sciences’ MelaFind, which has fallen out of use, in 2012. Both are class III devices.

But some companies intend to offer products for consumers in the United States. The company SkinVision, for example, has developed an app of the same name, which is intended to detect suspicious-looking skin spots via smartphone photos. SkinVision’s website says the product has been offered to consumers in Australia for remote skin checks since 2015. People in the Netherlands and United Kingdom also can use SkinVision, according to the company’s website. SkinVision says the company is working on providing the app for U.S. customers, “but we are not quite there yet.”

During the meeting, FDA panelists repeatedly emphasized the potential risks of these devices in terms of sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result) and of specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result).

New tools intended to aid in detection of skin cancer might produce too many false positives and thus trigger floods of worried patients seeking care and often facing unnecessary biopsies, the FDA panelists said. But more worrisome would be FDA clearance of tools that delivered too many false negative results, leaving people unaware of their cancers.

The standards would have to be set very high for new products, especially those intended for consumers, said FDA panelist Murad Alam, MD, a dermatologist and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Current technologies for analyzing skin lesions are not yet up to that task. Dr. Alam likened the situation to the hopes for self-driving cars.

“It sounds great in principle. If you read the predictions from 20 years ago, it should already have happened,” Dr. Alam said. “But we’re still struggling with that because there are serious points of failure.”

FDA panelist Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, also argued for well-designed studies to understand how consumers and clinicians would react to new tools.

“We have to define what prospective information, in the intended use setting, we need to feel comfortable saying that these tools could be in a layperson’s hand or a primary care person’s hand,” Dr. Rotemberg said.

The studies would not need to be large, especially in the case of nonmelanoma skin cancer, which is common, she added.

“There’s too much nuance here for us to be able to say: ‘This is what would happen,’ without testing it,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “I do not think these prospective studies would be very burdensome, but they would help us understand what the burden would be and what the costs would be and what the potential harms would be.”

Because of rules against disclosing corporate information, the FDA cannot tell the public about the kinds of inquiries it already may have fielded from companies interested in selling skin cancer detection tools.

But in response to a question during the FDA meeting, Binita Ashar, MD, a top official in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said there is interest in having these kinds of products sold in the United States as well.

“I can tell you that this a very timely discussion and questions that we’re posing to you are the questions that we’re encountering or that we have been grappling with,” Dr. Ashar said.

FDA panelists noted that many patients cannot get access easily to dermatology visits.

Companies seeking to develop SLA devices likely will market their tools as attempts to fill a gap that now exists in medical care.

But there will be challenges ahead in explaining to patients how to interpret readings from these tools, the FDA panelists said. Consumers should know these tools are meant to assist in diagnosis, and not to make it.

“I’m not sure the layperson will hear that,” said FDA panelist Paula E. Bourelly, MD, a dermatologist from Olney, Md.

As a result, use of SLA tools could create tension between physicians and patients, with consumers demanding biopsies after seeing readings they don’t understand.

“I do have great concerns about the layperson feeling overly confident and reducing the provider to a technician,” she said.

The FDA panelists were not asked to cast formal votes on any issues discussed during the meeting They instead engaged in broad discussions around questions posed by the FDA in three key areas:

• What standards should be used to confirm lesion diagnosis in clinical testing of the accuracy of SLA devices?
• What would be acceptable true false-positive and false-negative results (sensitivity and specificity) for different diagnoses and users?
• How can the FDA address health equity considerations based on variable incidence of skin lesions?

Developing standards

The FDA asked the panel to consider several scenarios for SLA devices and to discuss how standards might vary depending on the user of the device, whether it would be dermatologists, other clinicians, or consumers.

The agency sought comments in particular about using histological diagnosis (core specimen processing with a consensus diagnosis from an expert dermatopathologist panel). In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA argued that this approach provides the greatest certainty in the diagnosis.

“Device developers, however, cite concerns, both practical and ethical, in requiring biopsy of all lesions, particularly those that appear benign,” the FDA said. “They have proposed alternate means of defining ground truth, including consensus opinion of experts (of visual or dermoscopic examination of the lesion[s]), opinion of one expert (visual or dermoscopic examination), or other methods.”

In summarizing the discussion on this question, the FDA panel chairman, Hobart W. Harris, MD, MPH, a surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that there was broad support for histological data in clinical trials of SLA devices, with some allowance for cases where more hybrid approaches would be used.

There were also suggestions offered about designing trials and the need for biopsies of lesions that are clearly benign, as this would help gather data to help in developing algorithms.

Dr. Alam said care should be taken in explaining to study participants that they might have to undergo biopsies that they didn’t need, as part of the larger effort to gather data. This should be detailed in the consent form, he said.

“But I also think this is a relatively minor risk,” Dr. Alam said, comparing these biopsies to the blood samples that patients in many clinical studies routinely give.

“Are all of those blood draws necessary to track the change in whatever parameters that are being tracked? Probably not,” Dr. Alam said. “I think it would be possible to explain to a reasonable patient what this entails.”

Dr. Alam noted that companies might face extra hurdles in enrolling study participants and keeping them in the trials if the FDA seeks this kind of biopsy data. “But I don’t think inconvenience to the study sponsor is a good argument” for not seeking this kind of data, he added.

Leaving a loophole where certain kinds of clearly benign lesions don’t require a biopsy would eventually erode the quality of the research done on these devices. “That bar will be moved to accommodate the convenience of the sponsor, to make the study feasible,” Dr. Alam said. “And pretty soon, you’ll be missing a lot of patients that really should have biopsies.”
 

Acceptable rates of false positives, false negatives

The FDA panel chair noted that his colleagues had strongly urged review standards that would require that the devices improve on the rates of successful catches of suspicious lesions and lower false positives. But they did not endorse specific targets regarding the sensitivity and specificity rates.

“No one seems to be comfortable with providing or preordaining” these targets, Dr. Harris said.

Panelist Deneen Hesser, MSHSA, RN, urged a deep recognition of the power of a FDA clearance in the view of consumers.

“We need to be cognizant of what the term ‘FDA approved’ means to the lay individual,” said Ms. Hesser, who served as the patient representative on the panel. “A patient who sees that those tools are FDA approved will assume that each of those is the gold standard” in terms of expectations for delivering accurate results.

Like many of the panelists, Dr. Rotemberg urged the FDA to gather data about how patients would react to different messages encoded in consumer-oriented products.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“If the device says: ‘You should see a dermatologist for this’ and no other information, that’s very different from [saying]: ‘That lesion is suspicious for melanoma,’ ” Dr. Rotemberg said.

Despite the likely difficulties in conducting trials, the FDA needs to have the data to answer key questions about patient and physician reactions to readings from new tools, Dr. Rotemberg said.

“We don’t know how many additional biopsies we would cause with a specificity of 80%” for a new SLA tool, Dr. Rotemberg said, giving an example. “We don’t know how confident a dermatologist might be to say: ‘Actually, I’m not suspicious about that lesion and we can just fudge it or not biopsy it.’ We don’t know any of that until we study it in real life.”

The panelists also urged the FDA to seek to ensure that new tools used in analyzing skin lesions improve the quality of diagnosis.
 

Addressing equity

The FDA also asked the panel to weigh in on whether the agency should clear SLA tools in cases where the existing study data is drawn heavily from people considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

No credit needed per U.S. gov work.

“To ensure generalizability across the entire U.S. population, should FDA require SLAs indicated for use beyond cancerous lesions be tested in a representative U.S. population?” the FDA asked.

The three most common skin cancers – melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma – are more prevalent in people with Fitzpatrick I and II skin types, who tend to get sunburns, not tans. But people of color are more likely to develop melanoma in areas that are not sun exposed, such as the sole of the foot or under fingernails or toenails.

“Due in part to lower expected risk and screening, these melanomas are often detected late,” the FDA said in the briefing document.

There was broad consensus among panelists that the FDA should encourage companies to enroll people with all skin types and tones.

But they also looked for ways that the FDA could clear devices based on initial studies conducted largely with people considered to be at higher risk, with the agency then requiring follow-up trials to see how these products would work for the general U.S. population.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel stressed the need for further research about potential expanded use of devices in detection of skin cancer, with U.S. regulators readying for challenges in determining how well these tools need to work and how to address longstanding issues of racial equity in this field of medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has scheduled two meetings to gather expert feedback about managing an expected expansion in the use of skin lesion apps and devices. Outside of the United States, there are apps promoted as being able to help spot skin lesions that should trigger a medical visit.

AGA Institute

The general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee began work on this topic on July 28, with a wide-ranging discussion about potential expanded use of computer-aided, skin lesion analyzer (SLA) devices. On Friday, the panel is considering an FDA proposal to shift the designation for an approved device for aiding dermatologists in skin cancer diagnoses from the most stringent regulatory category, class III, to the less restrictive class II.

The FDA called the meeting amid growing interest in using technology to aid in finding cancers, with some of these products already marketed to consumers outside of the United States. There are presently no legally marketed, FDA-cleared or FDA-approved SLA devices indicated for use by clinicians other than dermatologists or the lay public, the agency said in a briefing memo for the meeting. There are two devices with FDA approval, though, for aiding dermatologists. The FDA approved SciBase’s Nevisense in 2017 and Mela Sciences’ MelaFind, which has fallen out of use, in 2012. Both are class III devices.

But some companies intend to offer products for consumers in the United States. The company SkinVision, for example, has developed an app of the same name, which is intended to detect suspicious-looking skin spots via smartphone photos. SkinVision’s website says the product has been offered to consumers in Australia for remote skin checks since 2015. People in the Netherlands and United Kingdom also can use SkinVision, according to the company’s website. SkinVision says the company is working on providing the app for U.S. customers, “but we are not quite there yet.”

During the meeting, FDA panelists repeatedly emphasized the potential risks of these devices in terms of sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result) and of specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result).

New tools intended to aid in detection of skin cancer might produce too many false positives and thus trigger floods of worried patients seeking care and often facing unnecessary biopsies, the FDA panelists said. But more worrisome would be FDA clearance of tools that delivered too many false negative results, leaving people unaware of their cancers.

The standards would have to be set very high for new products, especially those intended for consumers, said FDA panelist Murad Alam, MD, a dermatologist and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Current technologies for analyzing skin lesions are not yet up to that task. Dr. Alam likened the situation to the hopes for self-driving cars.

“It sounds great in principle. If you read the predictions from 20 years ago, it should already have happened,” Dr. Alam said. “But we’re still struggling with that because there are serious points of failure.”

FDA panelist Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, also argued for well-designed studies to understand how consumers and clinicians would react to new tools.

“We have to define what prospective information, in the intended use setting, we need to feel comfortable saying that these tools could be in a layperson’s hand or a primary care person’s hand,” Dr. Rotemberg said.

The studies would not need to be large, especially in the case of nonmelanoma skin cancer, which is common, she added.

“There’s too much nuance here for us to be able to say: ‘This is what would happen,’ without testing it,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “I do not think these prospective studies would be very burdensome, but they would help us understand what the burden would be and what the costs would be and what the potential harms would be.”

Because of rules against disclosing corporate information, the FDA cannot tell the public about the kinds of inquiries it already may have fielded from companies interested in selling skin cancer detection tools.

But in response to a question during the FDA meeting, Binita Ashar, MD, a top official in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said there is interest in having these kinds of products sold in the United States as well.

“I can tell you that this a very timely discussion and questions that we’re posing to you are the questions that we’re encountering or that we have been grappling with,” Dr. Ashar said.

FDA panelists noted that many patients cannot get access easily to dermatology visits.

Companies seeking to develop SLA devices likely will market their tools as attempts to fill a gap that now exists in medical care.

But there will be challenges ahead in explaining to patients how to interpret readings from these tools, the FDA panelists said. Consumers should know these tools are meant to assist in diagnosis, and not to make it.

“I’m not sure the layperson will hear that,” said FDA panelist Paula E. Bourelly, MD, a dermatologist from Olney, Md.

As a result, use of SLA tools could create tension between physicians and patients, with consumers demanding biopsies after seeing readings they don’t understand.

“I do have great concerns about the layperson feeling overly confident and reducing the provider to a technician,” she said.

The FDA panelists were not asked to cast formal votes on any issues discussed during the meeting They instead engaged in broad discussions around questions posed by the FDA in three key areas:

• What standards should be used to confirm lesion diagnosis in clinical testing of the accuracy of SLA devices?
• What would be acceptable true false-positive and false-negative results (sensitivity and specificity) for different diagnoses and users?
• How can the FDA address health equity considerations based on variable incidence of skin lesions?

Developing standards

The FDA asked the panel to consider several scenarios for SLA devices and to discuss how standards might vary depending on the user of the device, whether it would be dermatologists, other clinicians, or consumers.

The agency sought comments in particular about using histological diagnosis (core specimen processing with a consensus diagnosis from an expert dermatopathologist panel). In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA argued that this approach provides the greatest certainty in the diagnosis.

“Device developers, however, cite concerns, both practical and ethical, in requiring biopsy of all lesions, particularly those that appear benign,” the FDA said. “They have proposed alternate means of defining ground truth, including consensus opinion of experts (of visual or dermoscopic examination of the lesion[s]), opinion of one expert (visual or dermoscopic examination), or other methods.”

In summarizing the discussion on this question, the FDA panel chairman, Hobart W. Harris, MD, MPH, a surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that there was broad support for histological data in clinical trials of SLA devices, with some allowance for cases where more hybrid approaches would be used.

There were also suggestions offered about designing trials and the need for biopsies of lesions that are clearly benign, as this would help gather data to help in developing algorithms.

Dr. Alam said care should be taken in explaining to study participants that they might have to undergo biopsies that they didn’t need, as part of the larger effort to gather data. This should be detailed in the consent form, he said.

“But I also think this is a relatively minor risk,” Dr. Alam said, comparing these biopsies to the blood samples that patients in many clinical studies routinely give.

“Are all of those blood draws necessary to track the change in whatever parameters that are being tracked? Probably not,” Dr. Alam said. “I think it would be possible to explain to a reasonable patient what this entails.”

Dr. Alam noted that companies might face extra hurdles in enrolling study participants and keeping them in the trials if the FDA seeks this kind of biopsy data. “But I don’t think inconvenience to the study sponsor is a good argument” for not seeking this kind of data, he added.

Leaving a loophole where certain kinds of clearly benign lesions don’t require a biopsy would eventually erode the quality of the research done on these devices. “That bar will be moved to accommodate the convenience of the sponsor, to make the study feasible,” Dr. Alam said. “And pretty soon, you’ll be missing a lot of patients that really should have biopsies.”
 

Acceptable rates of false positives, false negatives

The FDA panel chair noted that his colleagues had strongly urged review standards that would require that the devices improve on the rates of successful catches of suspicious lesions and lower false positives. But they did not endorse specific targets regarding the sensitivity and specificity rates.

“No one seems to be comfortable with providing or preordaining” these targets, Dr. Harris said.

Panelist Deneen Hesser, MSHSA, RN, urged a deep recognition of the power of a FDA clearance in the view of consumers.

“We need to be cognizant of what the term ‘FDA approved’ means to the lay individual,” said Ms. Hesser, who served as the patient representative on the panel. “A patient who sees that those tools are FDA approved will assume that each of those is the gold standard” in terms of expectations for delivering accurate results.

Like many of the panelists, Dr. Rotemberg urged the FDA to gather data about how patients would react to different messages encoded in consumer-oriented products.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“If the device says: ‘You should see a dermatologist for this’ and no other information, that’s very different from [saying]: ‘That lesion is suspicious for melanoma,’ ” Dr. Rotemberg said.

Despite the likely difficulties in conducting trials, the FDA needs to have the data to answer key questions about patient and physician reactions to readings from new tools, Dr. Rotemberg said.

“We don’t know how many additional biopsies we would cause with a specificity of 80%” for a new SLA tool, Dr. Rotemberg said, giving an example. “We don’t know how confident a dermatologist might be to say: ‘Actually, I’m not suspicious about that lesion and we can just fudge it or not biopsy it.’ We don’t know any of that until we study it in real life.”

The panelists also urged the FDA to seek to ensure that new tools used in analyzing skin lesions improve the quality of diagnosis.
 

Addressing equity

The FDA also asked the panel to weigh in on whether the agency should clear SLA tools in cases where the existing study data is drawn heavily from people considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

No credit needed per U.S. gov work.

“To ensure generalizability across the entire U.S. population, should FDA require SLAs indicated for use beyond cancerous lesions be tested in a representative U.S. population?” the FDA asked.

The three most common skin cancers – melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma – are more prevalent in people with Fitzpatrick I and II skin types, who tend to get sunburns, not tans. But people of color are more likely to develop melanoma in areas that are not sun exposed, such as the sole of the foot or under fingernails or toenails.

“Due in part to lower expected risk and screening, these melanomas are often detected late,” the FDA said in the briefing document.

There was broad consensus among panelists that the FDA should encourage companies to enroll people with all skin types and tones.

But they also looked for ways that the FDA could clear devices based on initial studies conducted largely with people considered to be at higher risk, with the agency then requiring follow-up trials to see how these products would work for the general U.S. population.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel stressed the need for further research about potential expanded use of devices in detection of skin cancer, with U.S. regulators readying for challenges in determining how well these tools need to work and how to address longstanding issues of racial equity in this field of medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has scheduled two meetings to gather expert feedback about managing an expected expansion in the use of skin lesion apps and devices. Outside of the United States, there are apps promoted as being able to help spot skin lesions that should trigger a medical visit.

AGA Institute

The general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee began work on this topic on July 28, with a wide-ranging discussion about potential expanded use of computer-aided, skin lesion analyzer (SLA) devices. On Friday, the panel is considering an FDA proposal to shift the designation for an approved device for aiding dermatologists in skin cancer diagnoses from the most stringent regulatory category, class III, to the less restrictive class II.

The FDA called the meeting amid growing interest in using technology to aid in finding cancers, with some of these products already marketed to consumers outside of the United States. There are presently no legally marketed, FDA-cleared or FDA-approved SLA devices indicated for use by clinicians other than dermatologists or the lay public, the agency said in a briefing memo for the meeting. There are two devices with FDA approval, though, for aiding dermatologists. The FDA approved SciBase’s Nevisense in 2017 and Mela Sciences’ MelaFind, which has fallen out of use, in 2012. Both are class III devices.

But some companies intend to offer products for consumers in the United States. The company SkinVision, for example, has developed an app of the same name, which is intended to detect suspicious-looking skin spots via smartphone photos. SkinVision’s website says the product has been offered to consumers in Australia for remote skin checks since 2015. People in the Netherlands and United Kingdom also can use SkinVision, according to the company’s website. SkinVision says the company is working on providing the app for U.S. customers, “but we are not quite there yet.”

During the meeting, FDA panelists repeatedly emphasized the potential risks of these devices in terms of sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result) and of specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result).

New tools intended to aid in detection of skin cancer might produce too many false positives and thus trigger floods of worried patients seeking care and often facing unnecessary biopsies, the FDA panelists said. But more worrisome would be FDA clearance of tools that delivered too many false negative results, leaving people unaware of their cancers.

The standards would have to be set very high for new products, especially those intended for consumers, said FDA panelist Murad Alam, MD, a dermatologist and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Current technologies for analyzing skin lesions are not yet up to that task. Dr. Alam likened the situation to the hopes for self-driving cars.

“It sounds great in principle. If you read the predictions from 20 years ago, it should already have happened,” Dr. Alam said. “But we’re still struggling with that because there are serious points of failure.”

FDA panelist Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, also argued for well-designed studies to understand how consumers and clinicians would react to new tools.

“We have to define what prospective information, in the intended use setting, we need to feel comfortable saying that these tools could be in a layperson’s hand or a primary care person’s hand,” Dr. Rotemberg said.

The studies would not need to be large, especially in the case of nonmelanoma skin cancer, which is common, she added.

“There’s too much nuance here for us to be able to say: ‘This is what would happen,’ without testing it,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “I do not think these prospective studies would be very burdensome, but they would help us understand what the burden would be and what the costs would be and what the potential harms would be.”

Because of rules against disclosing corporate information, the FDA cannot tell the public about the kinds of inquiries it already may have fielded from companies interested in selling skin cancer detection tools.

But in response to a question during the FDA meeting, Binita Ashar, MD, a top official in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said there is interest in having these kinds of products sold in the United States as well.

“I can tell you that this a very timely discussion and questions that we’re posing to you are the questions that we’re encountering or that we have been grappling with,” Dr. Ashar said.

FDA panelists noted that many patients cannot get access easily to dermatology visits.

Companies seeking to develop SLA devices likely will market their tools as attempts to fill a gap that now exists in medical care.

But there will be challenges ahead in explaining to patients how to interpret readings from these tools, the FDA panelists said. Consumers should know these tools are meant to assist in diagnosis, and not to make it.

“I’m not sure the layperson will hear that,” said FDA panelist Paula E. Bourelly, MD, a dermatologist from Olney, Md.

As a result, use of SLA tools could create tension between physicians and patients, with consumers demanding biopsies after seeing readings they don’t understand.

“I do have great concerns about the layperson feeling overly confident and reducing the provider to a technician,” she said.

The FDA panelists were not asked to cast formal votes on any issues discussed during the meeting They instead engaged in broad discussions around questions posed by the FDA in three key areas:

• What standards should be used to confirm lesion diagnosis in clinical testing of the accuracy of SLA devices?
• What would be acceptable true false-positive and false-negative results (sensitivity and specificity) for different diagnoses and users?
• How can the FDA address health equity considerations based on variable incidence of skin lesions?

Developing standards

The FDA asked the panel to consider several scenarios for SLA devices and to discuss how standards might vary depending on the user of the device, whether it would be dermatologists, other clinicians, or consumers.

The agency sought comments in particular about using histological diagnosis (core specimen processing with a consensus diagnosis from an expert dermatopathologist panel). In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA argued that this approach provides the greatest certainty in the diagnosis.

“Device developers, however, cite concerns, both practical and ethical, in requiring biopsy of all lesions, particularly those that appear benign,” the FDA said. “They have proposed alternate means of defining ground truth, including consensus opinion of experts (of visual or dermoscopic examination of the lesion[s]), opinion of one expert (visual or dermoscopic examination), or other methods.”

In summarizing the discussion on this question, the FDA panel chairman, Hobart W. Harris, MD, MPH, a surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that there was broad support for histological data in clinical trials of SLA devices, with some allowance for cases where more hybrid approaches would be used.

There were also suggestions offered about designing trials and the need for biopsies of lesions that are clearly benign, as this would help gather data to help in developing algorithms.

Dr. Alam said care should be taken in explaining to study participants that they might have to undergo biopsies that they didn’t need, as part of the larger effort to gather data. This should be detailed in the consent form, he said.

“But I also think this is a relatively minor risk,” Dr. Alam said, comparing these biopsies to the blood samples that patients in many clinical studies routinely give.

“Are all of those blood draws necessary to track the change in whatever parameters that are being tracked? Probably not,” Dr. Alam said. “I think it would be possible to explain to a reasonable patient what this entails.”

Dr. Alam noted that companies might face extra hurdles in enrolling study participants and keeping them in the trials if the FDA seeks this kind of biopsy data. “But I don’t think inconvenience to the study sponsor is a good argument” for not seeking this kind of data, he added.

Leaving a loophole where certain kinds of clearly benign lesions don’t require a biopsy would eventually erode the quality of the research done on these devices. “That bar will be moved to accommodate the convenience of the sponsor, to make the study feasible,” Dr. Alam said. “And pretty soon, you’ll be missing a lot of patients that really should have biopsies.”
 

Acceptable rates of false positives, false negatives

The FDA panel chair noted that his colleagues had strongly urged review standards that would require that the devices improve on the rates of successful catches of suspicious lesions and lower false positives. But they did not endorse specific targets regarding the sensitivity and specificity rates.

“No one seems to be comfortable with providing or preordaining” these targets, Dr. Harris said.

Panelist Deneen Hesser, MSHSA, RN, urged a deep recognition of the power of a FDA clearance in the view of consumers.

“We need to be cognizant of what the term ‘FDA approved’ means to the lay individual,” said Ms. Hesser, who served as the patient representative on the panel. “A patient who sees that those tools are FDA approved will assume that each of those is the gold standard” in terms of expectations for delivering accurate results.

Like many of the panelists, Dr. Rotemberg urged the FDA to gather data about how patients would react to different messages encoded in consumer-oriented products.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“If the device says: ‘You should see a dermatologist for this’ and no other information, that’s very different from [saying]: ‘That lesion is suspicious for melanoma,’ ” Dr. Rotemberg said.

Despite the likely difficulties in conducting trials, the FDA needs to have the data to answer key questions about patient and physician reactions to readings from new tools, Dr. Rotemberg said.

“We don’t know how many additional biopsies we would cause with a specificity of 80%” for a new SLA tool, Dr. Rotemberg said, giving an example. “We don’t know how confident a dermatologist might be to say: ‘Actually, I’m not suspicious about that lesion and we can just fudge it or not biopsy it.’ We don’t know any of that until we study it in real life.”

The panelists also urged the FDA to seek to ensure that new tools used in analyzing skin lesions improve the quality of diagnosis.
 

Addressing equity

The FDA also asked the panel to weigh in on whether the agency should clear SLA tools in cases where the existing study data is drawn heavily from people considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

No credit needed per U.S. gov work.

“To ensure generalizability across the entire U.S. population, should FDA require SLAs indicated for use beyond cancerous lesions be tested in a representative U.S. population?” the FDA asked.

The three most common skin cancers – melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma – are more prevalent in people with Fitzpatrick I and II skin types, who tend to get sunburns, not tans. But people of color are more likely to develop melanoma in areas that are not sun exposed, such as the sole of the foot or under fingernails or toenails.

“Due in part to lower expected risk and screening, these melanomas are often detected late,” the FDA said in the briefing document.

There was broad consensus among panelists that the FDA should encourage companies to enroll people with all skin types and tones.

But they also looked for ways that the FDA could clear devices based on initial studies conducted largely with people considered to be at higher risk, with the agency then requiring follow-up trials to see how these products would work for the general U.S. population.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Scientists seeking to stay ahead of an evolving SARS-Cov-2 virus are looking at new strategies, including developing intranasal vaccines, according to speakers at a conference on July 26.

The Biden administration held a summit on the future of COVID-19 vaccines, inviting researchers to provide a public update on efforts to try to keep ahead of SARS-CoV-2.

Scientists and federal officials are looking to build on the successes seen in developing the original crop of COVID vaccines, which were authorized for use in the United States less than a year after the pandemic took hold.

But emerging variants are eroding these gains. For months now, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration have been keeping an eye on how the level of effectiveness of COVID vaccines has waned during the rise of the Omicron strain. And there’s continual concern about how SARS-CoV-2 might evolve over time.

“Our vaccines are terrific,” Ashish K. Jha, MD, the White House’s COVID-19 response coordinator, said at the summit. “[But] we have to do better.”

Among the approaches being considered are vaccines that would be applied intranasally, with the idea that this might be able to boost the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

At the summit, Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the intranasal approach might be helpful in preventing transmission as well as reducing the burden of illness for those who are infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re stopping the virus from spreading right at the border,” Dr. Iwasaki said at the summit. “This is akin to putting a guard outside of the house in order to patrol for invaders compared to putting the guards in the hallway of the building in the hope that they capture the invader.”

Dr. Iwasaki is one of the founders of Xanadu Bio, a private company created last year to focus on ways to kill SARS-CoV-2 in the nasosinus before it spreads deeper into the respiratory tract. In an editorial in Science Immunology, Dr. Iwasaki and Eric J. Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, urged greater federal investment in this approach to fighting SARS-CoV-2. (Dr. Topol is editor-in-chief of Medscape.)

Titled “Operation Nasal Vaccine – Lightning speed to counter COVID-19,” their editorial noted the “unprecedented success” seen in the rapid development of the first two mRNA shots. Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol noted that these victories had been “fueled by the $10 billion governmental investment in Operation Warp Speed.

“During the first year of the pandemic, meaningful evolution of the virus was slow-paced, without any functional consequences, but since that time we have seen a succession of important variants of concern, with increasing transmissibility and immune evasion, culminating in the Omicron lineages,”  wrote Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol.

Recent developments have “spotlighted the possibility of nasal vaccines, with their allure for achieving mucosal immunity, complementing, and likely bolstering the circulating immunity achieved via intramuscular shots,” they added.
 

An early setback

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) have for some time been looking to vet an array of next-generation vaccine concepts, including ones that trigger mucosal immunity, the Washington Post reported in April.

At the summit on July 26, several participants, including Dr. Jha, stressed the role that public-private partnerships were key to the rapid development of the initial COVID vaccines. They said continued U.S. government support will be needed to make advances in this field.

One of the presenters, Biao He, PhD, founder and president of CyanVac and Blue Lake Biotechnology, spoke of the federal support that his efforts have received over the years to develop intranasal vaccines. His Georgia-based firm already has an experimental intranasal vaccine candidate, CVXGA1-001, in phase 1 testing (NCT04954287).

The CVXGA-001 builds on technology already used in a veterinary product, an intranasal vaccine long used to prevent kennel cough in dogs, he said at the summit.

The emerging field of experimental intranasal COVID vaccines already has had at least one setback.

The biotech firm Altimmune in June 2021 announced that it would discontinue development of its experimental intranasal AdCOVID vaccine following disappointing phase 1 results. The vaccine appeared to be well tolerated in the test, but the immunogenicity data demonstrated lower than expected results in healthy volunteers, especially in light of the responses seen to already cleared vaccines, Altimmune said in a release. 

In the statement, Scot Roberts, PhD, chief scientific officer at Altimmune, noted that the study participants lacked immunity from prior infection or vaccination. “We believe that prior immunity in humans may be important for a robust immune response to intranasal dosing with AdCOVID,” he said.

At the summit, Marty Moore, PhD, cofounder and chief scientific officer for Redwood City, Calif.–based Meissa Vaccines, noted the challenges that remain ahead for intranasal COVID vaccines, while also highlighting what he sees as the potential of this approach.

Meissa also has advanced an experimental intranasal COVID vaccine as far as phase 1 testing (NCT04798001).

“No one here today can tell you that mucosal COVID vaccines work. We’re not there yet. We need clinical efficacy data to answer that question,” Dr. Moore said.

But there’s a potential for a “knockout blow to COVID, a transmission-blocking vaccine” from the intranasal approach, he said.

“The virus is mutating faster than our ability to manage vaccines and not enough people are getting boosters. These injectable vaccines do a great job of preventing severe disease, but they do little to prevent infection” from spreading, Dr. Moore said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Scientists seeking to stay ahead of an evolving SARS-Cov-2 virus are looking at new strategies, including developing intranasal vaccines, according to speakers at a conference on July 26.

The Biden administration held a summit on the future of COVID-19 vaccines, inviting researchers to provide a public update on efforts to try to keep ahead of SARS-CoV-2.

Scientists and federal officials are looking to build on the successes seen in developing the original crop of COVID vaccines, which were authorized for use in the United States less than a year after the pandemic took hold.

But emerging variants are eroding these gains. For months now, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration have been keeping an eye on how the level of effectiveness of COVID vaccines has waned during the rise of the Omicron strain. And there’s continual concern about how SARS-CoV-2 might evolve over time.

“Our vaccines are terrific,” Ashish K. Jha, MD, the White House’s COVID-19 response coordinator, said at the summit. “[But] we have to do better.”

Among the approaches being considered are vaccines that would be applied intranasally, with the idea that this might be able to boost the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

At the summit, Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the intranasal approach might be helpful in preventing transmission as well as reducing the burden of illness for those who are infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re stopping the virus from spreading right at the border,” Dr. Iwasaki said at the summit. “This is akin to putting a guard outside of the house in order to patrol for invaders compared to putting the guards in the hallway of the building in the hope that they capture the invader.”

Dr. Iwasaki is one of the founders of Xanadu Bio, a private company created last year to focus on ways to kill SARS-CoV-2 in the nasosinus before it spreads deeper into the respiratory tract. In an editorial in Science Immunology, Dr. Iwasaki and Eric J. Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, urged greater federal investment in this approach to fighting SARS-CoV-2. (Dr. Topol is editor-in-chief of Medscape.)

Titled “Operation Nasal Vaccine – Lightning speed to counter COVID-19,” their editorial noted the “unprecedented success” seen in the rapid development of the first two mRNA shots. Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol noted that these victories had been “fueled by the $10 billion governmental investment in Operation Warp Speed.

“During the first year of the pandemic, meaningful evolution of the virus was slow-paced, without any functional consequences, but since that time we have seen a succession of important variants of concern, with increasing transmissibility and immune evasion, culminating in the Omicron lineages,”  wrote Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol.

Recent developments have “spotlighted the possibility of nasal vaccines, with their allure for achieving mucosal immunity, complementing, and likely bolstering the circulating immunity achieved via intramuscular shots,” they added.
 

An early setback

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) have for some time been looking to vet an array of next-generation vaccine concepts, including ones that trigger mucosal immunity, the Washington Post reported in April.

At the summit on July 26, several participants, including Dr. Jha, stressed the role that public-private partnerships were key to the rapid development of the initial COVID vaccines. They said continued U.S. government support will be needed to make advances in this field.

One of the presenters, Biao He, PhD, founder and president of CyanVac and Blue Lake Biotechnology, spoke of the federal support that his efforts have received over the years to develop intranasal vaccines. His Georgia-based firm already has an experimental intranasal vaccine candidate, CVXGA1-001, in phase 1 testing (NCT04954287).

The CVXGA-001 builds on technology already used in a veterinary product, an intranasal vaccine long used to prevent kennel cough in dogs, he said at the summit.

The emerging field of experimental intranasal COVID vaccines already has had at least one setback.

The biotech firm Altimmune in June 2021 announced that it would discontinue development of its experimental intranasal AdCOVID vaccine following disappointing phase 1 results. The vaccine appeared to be well tolerated in the test, but the immunogenicity data demonstrated lower than expected results in healthy volunteers, especially in light of the responses seen to already cleared vaccines, Altimmune said in a release. 

In the statement, Scot Roberts, PhD, chief scientific officer at Altimmune, noted that the study participants lacked immunity from prior infection or vaccination. “We believe that prior immunity in humans may be important for a robust immune response to intranasal dosing with AdCOVID,” he said.

At the summit, Marty Moore, PhD, cofounder and chief scientific officer for Redwood City, Calif.–based Meissa Vaccines, noted the challenges that remain ahead for intranasal COVID vaccines, while also highlighting what he sees as the potential of this approach.

Meissa also has advanced an experimental intranasal COVID vaccine as far as phase 1 testing (NCT04798001).

“No one here today can tell you that mucosal COVID vaccines work. We’re not there yet. We need clinical efficacy data to answer that question,” Dr. Moore said.

But there’s a potential for a “knockout blow to COVID, a transmission-blocking vaccine” from the intranasal approach, he said.

“The virus is mutating faster than our ability to manage vaccines and not enough people are getting boosters. These injectable vaccines do a great job of preventing severe disease, but they do little to prevent infection” from spreading, Dr. Moore said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Scientists seeking to stay ahead of an evolving SARS-Cov-2 virus are looking at new strategies, including developing intranasal vaccines, according to speakers at a conference on July 26.

The Biden administration held a summit on the future of COVID-19 vaccines, inviting researchers to provide a public update on efforts to try to keep ahead of SARS-CoV-2.

Scientists and federal officials are looking to build on the successes seen in developing the original crop of COVID vaccines, which were authorized for use in the United States less than a year after the pandemic took hold.

But emerging variants are eroding these gains. For months now, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration have been keeping an eye on how the level of effectiveness of COVID vaccines has waned during the rise of the Omicron strain. And there’s continual concern about how SARS-CoV-2 might evolve over time.

“Our vaccines are terrific,” Ashish K. Jha, MD, the White House’s COVID-19 response coordinator, said at the summit. “[But] we have to do better.”

Among the approaches being considered are vaccines that would be applied intranasally, with the idea that this might be able to boost the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

At the summit, Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the intranasal approach might be helpful in preventing transmission as well as reducing the burden of illness for those who are infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re stopping the virus from spreading right at the border,” Dr. Iwasaki said at the summit. “This is akin to putting a guard outside of the house in order to patrol for invaders compared to putting the guards in the hallway of the building in the hope that they capture the invader.”

Dr. Iwasaki is one of the founders of Xanadu Bio, a private company created last year to focus on ways to kill SARS-CoV-2 in the nasosinus before it spreads deeper into the respiratory tract. In an editorial in Science Immunology, Dr. Iwasaki and Eric J. Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, urged greater federal investment in this approach to fighting SARS-CoV-2. (Dr. Topol is editor-in-chief of Medscape.)

Titled “Operation Nasal Vaccine – Lightning speed to counter COVID-19,” their editorial noted the “unprecedented success” seen in the rapid development of the first two mRNA shots. Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol noted that these victories had been “fueled by the $10 billion governmental investment in Operation Warp Speed.

“During the first year of the pandemic, meaningful evolution of the virus was slow-paced, without any functional consequences, but since that time we have seen a succession of important variants of concern, with increasing transmissibility and immune evasion, culminating in the Omicron lineages,”  wrote Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol.

Recent developments have “spotlighted the possibility of nasal vaccines, with their allure for achieving mucosal immunity, complementing, and likely bolstering the circulating immunity achieved via intramuscular shots,” they added.
 

An early setback

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) have for some time been looking to vet an array of next-generation vaccine concepts, including ones that trigger mucosal immunity, the Washington Post reported in April.

At the summit on July 26, several participants, including Dr. Jha, stressed the role that public-private partnerships were key to the rapid development of the initial COVID vaccines. They said continued U.S. government support will be needed to make advances in this field.

One of the presenters, Biao He, PhD, founder and president of CyanVac and Blue Lake Biotechnology, spoke of the federal support that his efforts have received over the years to develop intranasal vaccines. His Georgia-based firm already has an experimental intranasal vaccine candidate, CVXGA1-001, in phase 1 testing (NCT04954287).

The CVXGA-001 builds on technology already used in a veterinary product, an intranasal vaccine long used to prevent kennel cough in dogs, he said at the summit.

The emerging field of experimental intranasal COVID vaccines already has had at least one setback.

The biotech firm Altimmune in June 2021 announced that it would discontinue development of its experimental intranasal AdCOVID vaccine following disappointing phase 1 results. The vaccine appeared to be well tolerated in the test, but the immunogenicity data demonstrated lower than expected results in healthy volunteers, especially in light of the responses seen to already cleared vaccines, Altimmune said in a release. 

In the statement, Scot Roberts, PhD, chief scientific officer at Altimmune, noted that the study participants lacked immunity from prior infection or vaccination. “We believe that prior immunity in humans may be important for a robust immune response to intranasal dosing with AdCOVID,” he said.

At the summit, Marty Moore, PhD, cofounder and chief scientific officer for Redwood City, Calif.–based Meissa Vaccines, noted the challenges that remain ahead for intranasal COVID vaccines, while also highlighting what he sees as the potential of this approach.

Meissa also has advanced an experimental intranasal COVID vaccine as far as phase 1 testing (NCT04798001).

“No one here today can tell you that mucosal COVID vaccines work. We’re not there yet. We need clinical efficacy data to answer that question,” Dr. Moore said.

But there’s a potential for a “knockout blow to COVID, a transmission-blocking vaccine” from the intranasal approach, he said.

“The virus is mutating faster than our ability to manage vaccines and not enough people are getting boosters. These injectable vaccines do a great job of preventing severe disease, but they do little to prevent infection” from spreading, Dr. Moore said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Republican and Democratic members of the House called for changes in how insurer-run Medicare plans manage the prior authorization process, following testimony from a federal watchdog organization about improper denials of payment for care.

About 18% of payment denials in a sample examined by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) either met Medicare coverage rules or the rules of the insurance plan.

As such, they should not have been denied, according to the OIG. That was the finding of an April OIG report, based on a sample of 2019 denials from large insurer-run Medicare plans.

Erin Bliss, an assistant inspector general with the OIG, appeared as a witness at a June 28 Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing to discuss this investigation and other issues with prior authorization and insurer-run Medicare, also known as the Advantage plans.

Most of these payment denials of appropriate services were due to human error during manual claims-processing reviews, Ms. Bliss told the subcommittee, such as overlooking a document, and to system processing errors, such as a Medicare insurance plan failing to program or update a system correctly.

In many cases, these denials were reversed, but patient care was still disrupted and clinicians lost time chasing clearances for services that plans already had covered, Ms. Bliss said in her testimony.

The April report was not the OIG’s first look into concerns about insurer-run plans inappropriately denying care through prior authorizations. The OIG in 2018 reported that insurer-run Medicare plans overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-2016 when patients and clinicians appealed these decisions, overturning approximately 216,000 denials each year.

‘Numerous hoops’ unnecessary for doctors, patients

Lawmakers at the hearing supported the idea of the need for prior authorization as a screening tool to prevent unneeded care.

But they chided insurance companies for their execution of this process, with clinicians and patients often frustrated by complex steps needed. Medicare Advantage plans sometimes require prior authorization for “relatively standard medical services,” said Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to ensure coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” Rep. DeGette said.

Several lawmakers spoke at the hearing about the need for changes to prior authorization, including calling for action on a pending bill intended to compel insurers to streamline the review process. The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 already has attracted more than 300 bipartisan sponsors. A companion Senate bill has more than 30 sponsors.

The bill’s aim is to shift this process away from faxes and phone calls while also encouraging plans to adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians. The bill calls for the establishment of an electronic prior authorization program that could issue real-time decisions.

“The result will be less administrative burden for providers and more information in the hands of patients. It will allow more patients to receive care when they need it, reducing the likelihood of additional, often more severe complications,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) who is among the active sponsors of the bill.

“In the long term, I believe it would also result in cost savings for the health care system at large by identifying problems earlier and getting them treated before their patients have more complications,” Rep. Bucshon added.
 

Finding ‘room for improvement’ for prior authorizations

There’s strong bipartisan support in Congress for insurer-run Medicare, which has grown by 10% per year over the last several years and has doubled since 2010, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). About 27 million people are now enrolled in these plans.

But for that reason, insurer-run Medicare may also need more careful watching, lawmakers made clear at the hearing.

“We’ve heard quite a bit of evidence today that there is room for improvement,” said Rep. Bucshon, a strong supporter of insurer-run Medicare, which can offer patients added benefits such as dental coverage.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) said simplifying prior authorization would reduce stress on clinicians already dealing with burnout.

“They’re just so tired of all this paperwork and red tape,” Rep. Kuster said. “In 2022 can’t we at least consider electronic prior authorization?”

At the hearing, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, (R-Tex.) noted that his home state already has taken a step toward reducing the burden of prior authorization with its “gold card” program.

In 2021, a new Texas law called on the state department of insurance to develop rules to require health plans to provide an exemption from preauthorization requirements for a particular health care service if the issuer has approved, or would have approved, at least 90% of the preauthorization requests submitted by the physician or provider for that service. The law also mandates that a physician participating in a peer-to-peer review on behalf of a health benefit plan issuer must be a Texas-licensed physician who has the same or similar specialty as the physician or clinician requesting the service, according to the state insurance department.

Separately, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the sponsor of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, told the American Medical Association in a recent interview that she expects the House Ways and Means Committee, on which she serves, to mark up her bill in July. (A mark-up is the process by which a House or Senate committee considers and often amends a bill and then sends it to the chamber’s leadership for a floor vote.)

In a statement issued about the hearing, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) noted that there has been work in recent years toward streamlining prior authorization. AHIP said it launched the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway (Fast PATH) initiative in 2020 to study electronic procedures for handling these reviews.

“The findings of this study showed that ePA delivered improvements with a strong majority of experienced providers reporting faster time to patient care, fewer phone calls and faxes, better understanding of [prior authorization] requirements, and faster time to decisions,” AHIP said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Republican and Democratic members of the House called for changes in how insurer-run Medicare plans manage the prior authorization process, following testimony from a federal watchdog organization about improper denials of payment for care.

About 18% of payment denials in a sample examined by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) either met Medicare coverage rules or the rules of the insurance plan.

As such, they should not have been denied, according to the OIG. That was the finding of an April OIG report, based on a sample of 2019 denials from large insurer-run Medicare plans.

Erin Bliss, an assistant inspector general with the OIG, appeared as a witness at a June 28 Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing to discuss this investigation and other issues with prior authorization and insurer-run Medicare, also known as the Advantage plans.

Most of these payment denials of appropriate services were due to human error during manual claims-processing reviews, Ms. Bliss told the subcommittee, such as overlooking a document, and to system processing errors, such as a Medicare insurance plan failing to program or update a system correctly.

In many cases, these denials were reversed, but patient care was still disrupted and clinicians lost time chasing clearances for services that plans already had covered, Ms. Bliss said in her testimony.

The April report was not the OIG’s first look into concerns about insurer-run plans inappropriately denying care through prior authorizations. The OIG in 2018 reported that insurer-run Medicare plans overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-2016 when patients and clinicians appealed these decisions, overturning approximately 216,000 denials each year.

‘Numerous hoops’ unnecessary for doctors, patients

Lawmakers at the hearing supported the idea of the need for prior authorization as a screening tool to prevent unneeded care.

But they chided insurance companies for their execution of this process, with clinicians and patients often frustrated by complex steps needed. Medicare Advantage plans sometimes require prior authorization for “relatively standard medical services,” said Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to ensure coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” Rep. DeGette said.

Several lawmakers spoke at the hearing about the need for changes to prior authorization, including calling for action on a pending bill intended to compel insurers to streamline the review process. The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 already has attracted more than 300 bipartisan sponsors. A companion Senate bill has more than 30 sponsors.

The bill’s aim is to shift this process away from faxes and phone calls while also encouraging plans to adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians. The bill calls for the establishment of an electronic prior authorization program that could issue real-time decisions.

“The result will be less administrative burden for providers and more information in the hands of patients. It will allow more patients to receive care when they need it, reducing the likelihood of additional, often more severe complications,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) who is among the active sponsors of the bill.

“In the long term, I believe it would also result in cost savings for the health care system at large by identifying problems earlier and getting them treated before their patients have more complications,” Rep. Bucshon added.
 

Finding ‘room for improvement’ for prior authorizations

There’s strong bipartisan support in Congress for insurer-run Medicare, which has grown by 10% per year over the last several years and has doubled since 2010, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). About 27 million people are now enrolled in these plans.

But for that reason, insurer-run Medicare may also need more careful watching, lawmakers made clear at the hearing.

“We’ve heard quite a bit of evidence today that there is room for improvement,” said Rep. Bucshon, a strong supporter of insurer-run Medicare, which can offer patients added benefits such as dental coverage.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) said simplifying prior authorization would reduce stress on clinicians already dealing with burnout.

“They’re just so tired of all this paperwork and red tape,” Rep. Kuster said. “In 2022 can’t we at least consider electronic prior authorization?”

At the hearing, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, (R-Tex.) noted that his home state already has taken a step toward reducing the burden of prior authorization with its “gold card” program.

In 2021, a new Texas law called on the state department of insurance to develop rules to require health plans to provide an exemption from preauthorization requirements for a particular health care service if the issuer has approved, or would have approved, at least 90% of the preauthorization requests submitted by the physician or provider for that service. The law also mandates that a physician participating in a peer-to-peer review on behalf of a health benefit plan issuer must be a Texas-licensed physician who has the same or similar specialty as the physician or clinician requesting the service, according to the state insurance department.

Separately, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the sponsor of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, told the American Medical Association in a recent interview that she expects the House Ways and Means Committee, on which she serves, to mark up her bill in July. (A mark-up is the process by which a House or Senate committee considers and often amends a bill and then sends it to the chamber’s leadership for a floor vote.)

In a statement issued about the hearing, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) noted that there has been work in recent years toward streamlining prior authorization. AHIP said it launched the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway (Fast PATH) initiative in 2020 to study electronic procedures for handling these reviews.

“The findings of this study showed that ePA delivered improvements with a strong majority of experienced providers reporting faster time to patient care, fewer phone calls and faxes, better understanding of [prior authorization] requirements, and faster time to decisions,” AHIP said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Republican and Democratic members of the House called for changes in how insurer-run Medicare plans manage the prior authorization process, following testimony from a federal watchdog organization about improper denials of payment for care.

About 18% of payment denials in a sample examined by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) either met Medicare coverage rules or the rules of the insurance plan.

As such, they should not have been denied, according to the OIG. That was the finding of an April OIG report, based on a sample of 2019 denials from large insurer-run Medicare plans.

Erin Bliss, an assistant inspector general with the OIG, appeared as a witness at a June 28 Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing to discuss this investigation and other issues with prior authorization and insurer-run Medicare, also known as the Advantage plans.

Most of these payment denials of appropriate services were due to human error during manual claims-processing reviews, Ms. Bliss told the subcommittee, such as overlooking a document, and to system processing errors, such as a Medicare insurance plan failing to program or update a system correctly.

In many cases, these denials were reversed, but patient care was still disrupted and clinicians lost time chasing clearances for services that plans already had covered, Ms. Bliss said in her testimony.

The April report was not the OIG’s first look into concerns about insurer-run plans inappropriately denying care through prior authorizations. The OIG in 2018 reported that insurer-run Medicare plans overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-2016 when patients and clinicians appealed these decisions, overturning approximately 216,000 denials each year.

‘Numerous hoops’ unnecessary for doctors, patients

Lawmakers at the hearing supported the idea of the need for prior authorization as a screening tool to prevent unneeded care.

But they chided insurance companies for their execution of this process, with clinicians and patients often frustrated by complex steps needed. Medicare Advantage plans sometimes require prior authorization for “relatively standard medical services,” said Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to ensure coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” Rep. DeGette said.

Several lawmakers spoke at the hearing about the need for changes to prior authorization, including calling for action on a pending bill intended to compel insurers to streamline the review process. The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 already has attracted more than 300 bipartisan sponsors. A companion Senate bill has more than 30 sponsors.

The bill’s aim is to shift this process away from faxes and phone calls while also encouraging plans to adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians. The bill calls for the establishment of an electronic prior authorization program that could issue real-time decisions.

“The result will be less administrative burden for providers and more information in the hands of patients. It will allow more patients to receive care when they need it, reducing the likelihood of additional, often more severe complications,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) who is among the active sponsors of the bill.

“In the long term, I believe it would also result in cost savings for the health care system at large by identifying problems earlier and getting them treated before their patients have more complications,” Rep. Bucshon added.
 

Finding ‘room for improvement’ for prior authorizations

There’s strong bipartisan support in Congress for insurer-run Medicare, which has grown by 10% per year over the last several years and has doubled since 2010, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). About 27 million people are now enrolled in these plans.

But for that reason, insurer-run Medicare may also need more careful watching, lawmakers made clear at the hearing.

“We’ve heard quite a bit of evidence today that there is room for improvement,” said Rep. Bucshon, a strong supporter of insurer-run Medicare, which can offer patients added benefits such as dental coverage.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) said simplifying prior authorization would reduce stress on clinicians already dealing with burnout.

“They’re just so tired of all this paperwork and red tape,” Rep. Kuster said. “In 2022 can’t we at least consider electronic prior authorization?”

At the hearing, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, (R-Tex.) noted that his home state already has taken a step toward reducing the burden of prior authorization with its “gold card” program.

In 2021, a new Texas law called on the state department of insurance to develop rules to require health plans to provide an exemption from preauthorization requirements for a particular health care service if the issuer has approved, or would have approved, at least 90% of the preauthorization requests submitted by the physician or provider for that service. The law also mandates that a physician participating in a peer-to-peer review on behalf of a health benefit plan issuer must be a Texas-licensed physician who has the same or similar specialty as the physician or clinician requesting the service, according to the state insurance department.

Separately, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the sponsor of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, told the American Medical Association in a recent interview that she expects the House Ways and Means Committee, on which she serves, to mark up her bill in July. (A mark-up is the process by which a House or Senate committee considers and often amends a bill and then sends it to the chamber’s leadership for a floor vote.)

In a statement issued about the hearing, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) noted that there has been work in recent years toward streamlining prior authorization. AHIP said it launched the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway (Fast PATH) initiative in 2020 to study electronic procedures for handling these reviews.

“The findings of this study showed that ePA delivered improvements with a strong majority of experienced providers reporting faster time to patient care, fewer phone calls and faxes, better understanding of [prior authorization] requirements, and faster time to decisions,” AHIP said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel on June 28 recommended updating COVID-19 booster vaccines in the United States to include an Omicron component, while urging the need for more information on how well these shots work on emerging strains of the virus.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted 19-2 in favor of a new formulation – although what that formulation will be is yet to be determined. The FDA often incorporates the views of its advisers into its decisions, although it is not bound to do so.

In this case, though, top FDA staff at the meeting seemed inclined to encourage the development of COVID vaccines modified to keep up with an evolving virus. Two Omicron subvariants, BA.4 and BA.5, which first appeared in South Africa in March 2022, have spread to the United States and have begun to increase rapidly in proportion to the virus population, the FDA said in a briefing for the meeting.

New information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the two highly infectious subvariants now make up more than half the number of new COVID cases in the US.
 

Double-duty vaccine

In summarizing the message of the advisory committee, Peter W. Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research, said panelists had lent support to modifying vaccines to protect against both the original, or “ancestral” viral strain, and against Omicron, perhaps emphasizing the newly emerging subvariants.

Dr. Marks emphasized that this is a challenging decision, as no one has a “crystal ball” to forecast how SARS-CoV-2 will evolve.

“We are trying to use every last ounce of what we can from predictive modeling and from the data that we have that’s emerging, to try to get ahead of a virus that has been very crafty,” he said.”It’s pretty darn crafty.”
 

Limited data

Voting “no” were Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of Hofstra/Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y.

Both Dr. Offit and Dr. Bernstein earlier in the meeting expressed doubts about the evidence gathered to date in favor of a strain change. Dr. Offit had noted that protection seems to persist from the vaccines now available.

“To date, the current prototypical vaccines, the ancestral strain vaccines do protect against serious illness,” he said. “We don’t yet have a variant that is resistant to protection against serious illness.“

Dr. Bernstein said he was “struggling” with the question as well, given the limited data gathered to date about the vaccines and emerging strains of the virus.

Other panelists also expressed reservations, while supporting the concept of altering vaccines to teach the body to fight the emerging strains as well as the original one.

Panelist Wayne Marasco, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who voted yes, noted the difficulties of keeping up with the rapidly evolving virus, saying it’s possible that Omicron strains BA.4 and BA.5 could peak within months. That could be before the vaccines are even distributed – if all goes to plan – in the fall.

“This is a step in the right direction, but we have to reevaluate this as we move forward,” Dr. Marasco said, adding that a good strategy would be to elicit antibody response to bridge more than one variant of the virus.

Even panelists like Dr. Marasco who voted yes stressed the need for further data collection about how vaccines may be adapted to a changing virus. But they also acknowledged a need to give vaccine makers a clear indication of what the medical community expects in terms of changes to these shots.

“With the waning vaccine efficacy and the confluence of risk this fall, we need to make a move sooner rather than later and direct our sponsors in the proper direction,” said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said before the vote.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel on June 28 recommended updating COVID-19 booster vaccines in the United States to include an Omicron component, while urging the need for more information on how well these shots work on emerging strains of the virus.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted 19-2 in favor of a new formulation – although what that formulation will be is yet to be determined. The FDA often incorporates the views of its advisers into its decisions, although it is not bound to do so.

In this case, though, top FDA staff at the meeting seemed inclined to encourage the development of COVID vaccines modified to keep up with an evolving virus. Two Omicron subvariants, BA.4 and BA.5, which first appeared in South Africa in March 2022, have spread to the United States and have begun to increase rapidly in proportion to the virus population, the FDA said in a briefing for the meeting.

New information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the two highly infectious subvariants now make up more than half the number of new COVID cases in the US.
 

Double-duty vaccine

In summarizing the message of the advisory committee, Peter W. Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research, said panelists had lent support to modifying vaccines to protect against both the original, or “ancestral” viral strain, and against Omicron, perhaps emphasizing the newly emerging subvariants.

Dr. Marks emphasized that this is a challenging decision, as no one has a “crystal ball” to forecast how SARS-CoV-2 will evolve.

“We are trying to use every last ounce of what we can from predictive modeling and from the data that we have that’s emerging, to try to get ahead of a virus that has been very crafty,” he said.”It’s pretty darn crafty.”
 

Limited data

Voting “no” were Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of Hofstra/Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y.

Both Dr. Offit and Dr. Bernstein earlier in the meeting expressed doubts about the evidence gathered to date in favor of a strain change. Dr. Offit had noted that protection seems to persist from the vaccines now available.

“To date, the current prototypical vaccines, the ancestral strain vaccines do protect against serious illness,” he said. “We don’t yet have a variant that is resistant to protection against serious illness.“

Dr. Bernstein said he was “struggling” with the question as well, given the limited data gathered to date about the vaccines and emerging strains of the virus.

Other panelists also expressed reservations, while supporting the concept of altering vaccines to teach the body to fight the emerging strains as well as the original one.

Panelist Wayne Marasco, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who voted yes, noted the difficulties of keeping up with the rapidly evolving virus, saying it’s possible that Omicron strains BA.4 and BA.5 could peak within months. That could be before the vaccines are even distributed – if all goes to plan – in the fall.

“This is a step in the right direction, but we have to reevaluate this as we move forward,” Dr. Marasco said, adding that a good strategy would be to elicit antibody response to bridge more than one variant of the virus.

Even panelists like Dr. Marasco who voted yes stressed the need for further data collection about how vaccines may be adapted to a changing virus. But they also acknowledged a need to give vaccine makers a clear indication of what the medical community expects in terms of changes to these shots.

“With the waning vaccine efficacy and the confluence of risk this fall, we need to make a move sooner rather than later and direct our sponsors in the proper direction,” said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said before the vote.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel on June 28 recommended updating COVID-19 booster vaccines in the United States to include an Omicron component, while urging the need for more information on how well these shots work on emerging strains of the virus.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted 19-2 in favor of a new formulation – although what that formulation will be is yet to be determined. The FDA often incorporates the views of its advisers into its decisions, although it is not bound to do so.

In this case, though, top FDA staff at the meeting seemed inclined to encourage the development of COVID vaccines modified to keep up with an evolving virus. Two Omicron subvariants, BA.4 and BA.5, which first appeared in South Africa in March 2022, have spread to the United States and have begun to increase rapidly in proportion to the virus population, the FDA said in a briefing for the meeting.

New information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the two highly infectious subvariants now make up more than half the number of new COVID cases in the US.
 

Double-duty vaccine

In summarizing the message of the advisory committee, Peter W. Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research, said panelists had lent support to modifying vaccines to protect against both the original, or “ancestral” viral strain, and against Omicron, perhaps emphasizing the newly emerging subvariants.

Dr. Marks emphasized that this is a challenging decision, as no one has a “crystal ball” to forecast how SARS-CoV-2 will evolve.

“We are trying to use every last ounce of what we can from predictive modeling and from the data that we have that’s emerging, to try to get ahead of a virus that has been very crafty,” he said.”It’s pretty darn crafty.”
 

Limited data

Voting “no” were Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of Hofstra/Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y.

Both Dr. Offit and Dr. Bernstein earlier in the meeting expressed doubts about the evidence gathered to date in favor of a strain change. Dr. Offit had noted that protection seems to persist from the vaccines now available.

“To date, the current prototypical vaccines, the ancestral strain vaccines do protect against serious illness,” he said. “We don’t yet have a variant that is resistant to protection against serious illness.“

Dr. Bernstein said he was “struggling” with the question as well, given the limited data gathered to date about the vaccines and emerging strains of the virus.

Other panelists also expressed reservations, while supporting the concept of altering vaccines to teach the body to fight the emerging strains as well as the original one.

Panelist Wayne Marasco, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who voted yes, noted the difficulties of keeping up with the rapidly evolving virus, saying it’s possible that Omicron strains BA.4 and BA.5 could peak within months. That could be before the vaccines are even distributed – if all goes to plan – in the fall.

“This is a step in the right direction, but we have to reevaluate this as we move forward,” Dr. Marasco said, adding that a good strategy would be to elicit antibody response to bridge more than one variant of the virus.

Even panelists like Dr. Marasco who voted yes stressed the need for further data collection about how vaccines may be adapted to a changing virus. But they also acknowledged a need to give vaccine makers a clear indication of what the medical community expects in terms of changes to these shots.

“With the waning vaccine efficacy and the confluence of risk this fall, we need to make a move sooner rather than later and direct our sponsors in the proper direction,” said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said before the vote.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel strongly supported a bid for Novavax to win U.S. emergency authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is based on a more traditional, protein-based approach than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.

The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.

Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.

Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.

Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).

But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
 

Using the ‘bully pulpit’

At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.

About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.

Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.

“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”

Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.

EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.

During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.

In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.

Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.

“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.

“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.

Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.

“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
 

Myocarditis, pericarditis

The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.

That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said. 

As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.

At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.

“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”

In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.

In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”

Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”

The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.

At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.

“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel strongly supported a bid for Novavax to win U.S. emergency authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is based on a more traditional, protein-based approach than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.

The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.

Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.

Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.

Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).

But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
 

Using the ‘bully pulpit’

At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.

About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.

Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.

“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”

Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.

EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.

During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.

In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.

Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.

“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.

“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.

Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.

“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
 

Myocarditis, pericarditis

The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.

That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said. 

As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.

At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.

“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”

In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.

In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”

Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”

The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.

At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.

“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel strongly supported a bid for Novavax to win U.S. emergency authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is based on a more traditional, protein-based approach than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.

The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.

Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.

Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.

Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).

But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
 

Using the ‘bully pulpit’

At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.

About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.

Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.

“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”

Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.

EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.

During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.

In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.

Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.

“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.

“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.

Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.

“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
 

Myocarditis, pericarditis

The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.

That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said. 

As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.

At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.

“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”

In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.

In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”

Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”

The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.

At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.

“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.