User login
FDA Emphasizes Alternative Device Sterilization Strategies
The US Food and Drug Administration has expanded its guidance on medical device sterilization to include vaporized hydrogen peroxide, according to an agency press release issued on January 8.
The update is intended to promote wider use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) as a viable alternative to ethylene oxide (EtO). The FDA guidance on sterile devices has been revised to include VHP.
The acceptance of VHP as an Established Category A method of sterilization is another step toward the FDA’s larger goal of reducing EtO, according to the release.
Sterilization is essential for certain medical devices, but the use of EtO, currently the most common method, involves the release of emissions that are potentially harmful to health, and the FDA seeks to identify safe and effective alternatives to reduce risk to the environment and communities where device sterilization occurs. Current Established Category A sterilization methods include moist heat, dry heat, EtO, and radiation. 
“Vaporized hydrogen peroxide’s addition as an established sterilization method helps us build a more resilient supply chain for sterilized devices that can help prevent medical device shortages,” Suzanne Schwartz, MD, director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships and Technology Innovation in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the press release. “As innovations in sterilization advance, the FDA will continue to seek additional modalities that deliver safe and effective sterilization methods that best protect public health,” she said.
The FDA has supported the development of EtO alternatives since 2019, and remains committed to reducing EtO emissions and also to avoiding potential device shortages, according to the release.
“Ethylene oxide is highly flammable and carcinogenic and poses exposure-related safety concerns for reprocessing staff, as well as environmental risks,” said Venkataraman R. Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, of the University of California, Los Angeles, in an interview. “These risks have led some states or regions to ban or limit its use, but despite these risks, it is currently the most commonly used sterilization technique for medical devices in the United States,” he said. Therefore, coming up with alternatives has been a high priority for the FDA, he added.
VHP has several advantages over EtO, Dr. Muthusamy said. VHP breaks down safely into water and oxygen, with low residual levels after exposure, and has no known oxidation or discoloration effects. In addition, VHP has a low temperature, and should theoretically be safe to use with endoscopes, although data are lacking, he said.
Dr. Muthusamy said that he was not yet too familiar with VHP as a technique, in part because most accessories in GI are single-use.
Primary issues to expanding the use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide as a sterilizing agent in GI clinical practice include availability and the cost of acquiring the devices needed, Dr. Muthusamy told GI & Hepatology News. “Also, the comparative efficacy of this technique in sterilizing GI endoscopes to ethylene oxide and the impact of VHP on scope durability and performance will need to be assessed, and the impact of VHP on the health and safety of reprocessing staff will need to be assessed and monitored,” he said.
There is an interest in the GI community in “green” endoscopy and reducing waste, Dr. Muthusamy said. If an inexpensive, safe, and cost-effective option for sterilization of other devices beyond endoscopes exists, “perhaps we could reduce our use of some disposables as well,” he said.
Dr. Muthusamy had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The US Food and Drug Administration has expanded its guidance on medical device sterilization to include vaporized hydrogen peroxide, according to an agency press release issued on January 8.
The update is intended to promote wider use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) as a viable alternative to ethylene oxide (EtO). The FDA guidance on sterile devices has been revised to include VHP.
The acceptance of VHP as an Established Category A method of sterilization is another step toward the FDA’s larger goal of reducing EtO, according to the release.
Sterilization is essential for certain medical devices, but the use of EtO, currently the most common method, involves the release of emissions that are potentially harmful to health, and the FDA seeks to identify safe and effective alternatives to reduce risk to the environment and communities where device sterilization occurs. Current Established Category A sterilization methods include moist heat, dry heat, EtO, and radiation.
“Vaporized hydrogen peroxide’s addition as an established sterilization method helps us build a more resilient supply chain for sterilized devices that can help prevent medical device shortages,” Suzanne Schwartz, MD, director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships and Technology Innovation in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the press release. “As innovations in sterilization advance, the FDA will continue to seek additional modalities that deliver safe and effective sterilization methods that best protect public health,” she said.
The FDA has supported the development of EtO alternatives since 2019, and remains committed to reducing EtO emissions and also to avoiding potential device shortages, according to the release.
“Ethylene oxide is highly flammable and carcinogenic and poses exposure-related safety concerns for reprocessing staff, as well as environmental risks,” said Venkataraman R. Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, of the University of California, Los Angeles, in an interview. “These risks have led some states or regions to ban or limit its use, but despite these risks, it is currently the most commonly used sterilization technique for medical devices in the United States,” he said. Therefore, coming up with alternatives has been a high priority for the FDA, he added.
VHP has several advantages over EtO, Dr. Muthusamy said. VHP breaks down safely into water and oxygen, with low residual levels after exposure, and has no known oxidation or discoloration effects. In addition, VHP has a low temperature, and should theoretically be safe to use with endoscopes, although data are lacking, he said.
Dr. Muthusamy said that he was not yet too familiar with VHP as a technique, in part because most accessories in GI are single-use.
Primary issues to expanding the use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide as a sterilizing agent in GI clinical practice include availability and the cost of acquiring the devices needed, Dr. Muthusamy told GI & Hepatology News. “Also, the comparative efficacy of this technique in sterilizing GI endoscopes to ethylene oxide and the impact of VHP on scope durability and performance will need to be assessed, and the impact of VHP on the health and safety of reprocessing staff will need to be assessed and monitored,” he said.
There is an interest in the GI community in “green” endoscopy and reducing waste, Dr. Muthusamy said. If an inexpensive, safe, and cost-effective option for sterilization of other devices beyond endoscopes exists, “perhaps we could reduce our use of some disposables as well,” he said.
Dr. Muthusamy had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The US Food and Drug Administration has expanded its guidance on medical device sterilization to include vaporized hydrogen peroxide, according to an agency press release issued on January 8.
The update is intended to promote wider use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) as a viable alternative to ethylene oxide (EtO). The FDA guidance on sterile devices has been revised to include VHP.
The acceptance of VHP as an Established Category A method of sterilization is another step toward the FDA’s larger goal of reducing EtO, according to the release.
Sterilization is essential for certain medical devices, but the use of EtO, currently the most common method, involves the release of emissions that are potentially harmful to health, and the FDA seeks to identify safe and effective alternatives to reduce risk to the environment and communities where device sterilization occurs. Current Established Category A sterilization methods include moist heat, dry heat, EtO, and radiation.
“Vaporized hydrogen peroxide’s addition as an established sterilization method helps us build a more resilient supply chain for sterilized devices that can help prevent medical device shortages,” Suzanne Schwartz, MD, director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships and Technology Innovation in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the press release. “As innovations in sterilization advance, the FDA will continue to seek additional modalities that deliver safe and effective sterilization methods that best protect public health,” she said.
The FDA has supported the development of EtO alternatives since 2019, and remains committed to reducing EtO emissions and also to avoiding potential device shortages, according to the release.
“Ethylene oxide is highly flammable and carcinogenic and poses exposure-related safety concerns for reprocessing staff, as well as environmental risks,” said Venkataraman R. Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, of the University of California, Los Angeles, in an interview. “These risks have led some states or regions to ban or limit its use, but despite these risks, it is currently the most commonly used sterilization technique for medical devices in the United States,” he said. Therefore, coming up with alternatives has been a high priority for the FDA, he added.
VHP has several advantages over EtO, Dr. Muthusamy said. VHP breaks down safely into water and oxygen, with low residual levels after exposure, and has no known oxidation or discoloration effects. In addition, VHP has a low temperature, and should theoretically be safe to use with endoscopes, although data are lacking, he said.
Dr. Muthusamy said that he was not yet too familiar with VHP as a technique, in part because most accessories in GI are single-use.
Primary issues to expanding the use of vaporized hydrogen peroxide as a sterilizing agent in GI clinical practice include availability and the cost of acquiring the devices needed, Dr. Muthusamy told GI & Hepatology News. “Also, the comparative efficacy of this technique in sterilizing GI endoscopes to ethylene oxide and the impact of VHP on scope durability and performance will need to be assessed, and the impact of VHP on the health and safety of reprocessing staff will need to be assessed and monitored,” he said.
There is an interest in the GI community in “green” endoscopy and reducing waste, Dr. Muthusamy said. If an inexpensive, safe, and cost-effective option for sterilization of other devices beyond endoscopes exists, “perhaps we could reduce our use of some disposables as well,” he said.
Dr. Muthusamy had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FDA OKs First Oral Agent for Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Budesonide oral suspension is a corticosteroid indicated for 12 weeks of treatment of EoE in adults and children as young as 11 years.
It will be available in 2-mg/10-mL single-dose stick packs by the end of February.
“Developed specifically for EoE, Eohilia’s novel formulation of budesonide confers thixotropic properties — flowing more freely when shaken and returning to a more viscous state when swallowed,” the company said in a news release. 
“Various formulations of corticosteroids have been used in the past to manage EoE, but in an off-label capacity and using multiple delivery options. With Eohilia, it’s gratifying to now have an FDA-approved treatment specifically formulated for a consistent dose delivery with demonstrated ability to address esophageal inflammation and EoE dysphagia symptoms,” Ikuo Hirano, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Esophageal Center at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said in the release.
Supporting Data
The FDA approved budesonide oral suspension for EoE based on efficacy and safety data from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled 12-week studies.
In study 1, significantly more patients receiving active treatment achieved histologic remission (53.1% vs 1% with placebo). The same was true in study 2, with 38% of patients receiving active treatment achieving histologic remission compared with 2.4% of those receiving placebo.
The absolute change from baseline in the patient-reported Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire combined score was -10.2 with budesonide vs -6.5 with placebo in Study 1 and -14.5 vs -5.9 in Study 2.
During the last 2 weeks of treatment, more patients receiving budesonide oral suspension experienced no dysphagia or only experienced dysphagia that “got better or cleared up on its own” compared with those receiving placebo, the company said.
The most common adverse reactions seen in the clinical trials of budesonide oral suspension for EoE included respiratory tract infection (13%), gastrointestinal mucosal candidiasis (8%), headache (5%), gastroenteritis (3%), throat irritation (3%), adrenal suppression (2%), and erosive esophagitis (2%).
Complete prescribing information is available on the FDA website.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Budesonide oral suspension is a corticosteroid indicated for 12 weeks of treatment of EoE in adults and children as young as 11 years.
It will be available in 2-mg/10-mL single-dose stick packs by the end of February.
“Developed specifically for EoE, Eohilia’s novel formulation of budesonide confers thixotropic properties — flowing more freely when shaken and returning to a more viscous state when swallowed,” the company said in a news release.
“Various formulations of corticosteroids have been used in the past to manage EoE, but in an off-label capacity and using multiple delivery options. With Eohilia, it’s gratifying to now have an FDA-approved treatment specifically formulated for a consistent dose delivery with demonstrated ability to address esophageal inflammation and EoE dysphagia symptoms,” Ikuo Hirano, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Esophageal Center at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said in the release.
Supporting Data
The FDA approved budesonide oral suspension for EoE based on efficacy and safety data from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled 12-week studies.
In study 1, significantly more patients receiving active treatment achieved histologic remission (53.1% vs 1% with placebo). The same was true in study 2, with 38% of patients receiving active treatment achieving histologic remission compared with 2.4% of those receiving placebo.
The absolute change from baseline in the patient-reported Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire combined score was -10.2 with budesonide vs -6.5 with placebo in Study 1 and -14.5 vs -5.9 in Study 2.
During the last 2 weeks of treatment, more patients receiving budesonide oral suspension experienced no dysphagia or only experienced dysphagia that “got better or cleared up on its own” compared with those receiving placebo, the company said.
The most common adverse reactions seen in the clinical trials of budesonide oral suspension for EoE included respiratory tract infection (13%), gastrointestinal mucosal candidiasis (8%), headache (5%), gastroenteritis (3%), throat irritation (3%), adrenal suppression (2%), and erosive esophagitis (2%).
Complete prescribing information is available on the FDA website.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Budesonide oral suspension is a corticosteroid indicated for 12 weeks of treatment of EoE in adults and children as young as 11 years.
It will be available in 2-mg/10-mL single-dose stick packs by the end of February.
“Developed specifically for EoE, Eohilia’s novel formulation of budesonide confers thixotropic properties — flowing more freely when shaken and returning to a more viscous state when swallowed,” the company said in a news release.
“Various formulations of corticosteroids have been used in the past to manage EoE, but in an off-label capacity and using multiple delivery options. With Eohilia, it’s gratifying to now have an FDA-approved treatment specifically formulated for a consistent dose delivery with demonstrated ability to address esophageal inflammation and EoE dysphagia symptoms,” Ikuo Hirano, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Esophageal Center at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said in the release.
Supporting Data
The FDA approved budesonide oral suspension for EoE based on efficacy and safety data from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled 12-week studies.
In study 1, significantly more patients receiving active treatment achieved histologic remission (53.1% vs 1% with placebo). The same was true in study 2, with 38% of patients receiving active treatment achieving histologic remission compared with 2.4% of those receiving placebo.
The absolute change from baseline in the patient-reported Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire combined score was -10.2 with budesonide vs -6.5 with placebo in Study 1 and -14.5 vs -5.9 in Study 2.
During the last 2 weeks of treatment, more patients receiving budesonide oral suspension experienced no dysphagia or only experienced dysphagia that “got better or cleared up on its own” compared with those receiving placebo, the company said.
The most common adverse reactions seen in the clinical trials of budesonide oral suspension for EoE included respiratory tract infection (13%), gastrointestinal mucosal candidiasis (8%), headache (5%), gastroenteritis (3%), throat irritation (3%), adrenal suppression (2%), and erosive esophagitis (2%).
Complete prescribing information is available on the FDA website.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Expands Dupilumab for EoE to Younger Children
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved dupilumab (Dupixent, Regeneron/Sanofi) for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in children aged 1-11 years and weighing ≥ 15 kg. It is the first and only medicine approved to treat these patients.
, as reported by this news organization.
EoE is a chronic inflammatory disorder driven by type 2 inflammation that damages the esophagus and causes difficulty swallowing and eating.
Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that acts to inhibit part of the inflammatory pathway.
EoE KIDS Trial
The FDA approval of dupilumab for younger children is based on results from the phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EoE KIDS trial, which had two parts.
Part A was a 16-week double-blind treatment period that evaluated the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in a tiered weight-based dosing schema.
At 16 weeks, 66% of children who received higher dose dupilumab at tiered dosing regimens based on weight achieved histologic disease remission (six or fewer eosinophils/high power field), which was the primary endpoint, compared with only 3% of children who received placebo.
In addition, a greater decrease in the proportion of days with one or more signs of EoE according to the Pediatric EoE Sign/Symptom Questionnaire caregiver version (PESQ-C) was observed in children treated with dupilumab at 16 weeks compared placebo.
Part B was a 36-week extended active treatment period in which eligible children from Part A in the dupilumab group continued to receive their dose level and those in the placebo group in Part A switched to active treatment.
Histologic remission was sustained at week 52 in 53% of children treated with dupilumab in Parts A and B. Histologic remission was also achieved at week 52 in 53% of children who switched to dupilumab from placebo in Part B.
The safety profile of dupilumab observed through 16 weeks in these children was generally in line to that seen through 24 weeks in persons aged 12 years or older with EoE.
The most common adverse events (≥ 2%) more frequently observed with dupilumab than with placebo were injection site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, arthralgia, and herpes viral infections. In EoE KIDS Part B, one case of helminth infection was reported in the dupilumab arm.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved dupilumab (Dupixent, Regeneron/Sanofi) for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in children aged 1-11 years and weighing ≥ 15 kg. It is the first and only medicine approved to treat these patients.
, as reported by this news organization.
EoE is a chronic inflammatory disorder driven by type 2 inflammation that damages the esophagus and causes difficulty swallowing and eating.
Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that acts to inhibit part of the inflammatory pathway.
EoE KIDS Trial
The FDA approval of dupilumab for younger children is based on results from the phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EoE KIDS trial, which had two parts.
Part A was a 16-week double-blind treatment period that evaluated the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in a tiered weight-based dosing schema.
At 16 weeks, 66% of children who received higher dose dupilumab at tiered dosing regimens based on weight achieved histologic disease remission (six or fewer eosinophils/high power field), which was the primary endpoint, compared with only 3% of children who received placebo.
In addition, a greater decrease in the proportion of days with one or more signs of EoE according to the Pediatric EoE Sign/Symptom Questionnaire caregiver version (PESQ-C) was observed in children treated with dupilumab at 16 weeks compared placebo.
Part B was a 36-week extended active treatment period in which eligible children from Part A in the dupilumab group continued to receive their dose level and those in the placebo group in Part A switched to active treatment.
Histologic remission was sustained at week 52 in 53% of children treated with dupilumab in Parts A and B. Histologic remission was also achieved at week 52 in 53% of children who switched to dupilumab from placebo in Part B.
The safety profile of dupilumab observed through 16 weeks in these children was generally in line to that seen through 24 weeks in persons aged 12 years or older with EoE.
The most common adverse events (≥ 2%) more frequently observed with dupilumab than with placebo were injection site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, arthralgia, and herpes viral infections. In EoE KIDS Part B, one case of helminth infection was reported in the dupilumab arm.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved dupilumab (Dupixent, Regeneron/Sanofi) for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in children aged 1-11 years and weighing ≥ 15 kg. It is the first and only medicine approved to treat these patients.
, as reported by this news organization.
EoE is a chronic inflammatory disorder driven by type 2 inflammation that damages the esophagus and causes difficulty swallowing and eating.
Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that acts to inhibit part of the inflammatory pathway.
EoE KIDS Trial
The FDA approval of dupilumab for younger children is based on results from the phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EoE KIDS trial, which had two parts.
Part A was a 16-week double-blind treatment period that evaluated the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in a tiered weight-based dosing schema.
At 16 weeks, 66% of children who received higher dose dupilumab at tiered dosing regimens based on weight achieved histologic disease remission (six or fewer eosinophils/high power field), which was the primary endpoint, compared with only 3% of children who received placebo.
In addition, a greater decrease in the proportion of days with one or more signs of EoE according to the Pediatric EoE Sign/Symptom Questionnaire caregiver version (PESQ-C) was observed in children treated with dupilumab at 16 weeks compared placebo.
Part B was a 36-week extended active treatment period in which eligible children from Part A in the dupilumab group continued to receive their dose level and those in the placebo group in Part A switched to active treatment.
Histologic remission was sustained at week 52 in 53% of children treated with dupilumab in Parts A and B. Histologic remission was also achieved at week 52 in 53% of children who switched to dupilumab from placebo in Part B.
The safety profile of dupilumab observed through 16 weeks in these children was generally in line to that seen through 24 weeks in persons aged 12 years or older with EoE.
The most common adverse events (≥ 2%) more frequently observed with dupilumab than with placebo were injection site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, arthralgia, and herpes viral infections. In EoE KIDS Part B, one case of helminth infection was reported in the dupilumab arm.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Recommends DEA Move Cannabis From Schedule I to III
Newly released documents show that .
The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.
The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.
The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation.
Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.
“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.
In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”
Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016.
Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer.
“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
Credible Medical Use
The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.
Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted.
The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”
The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.
Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.”
Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.
“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
Opposition in Congress
It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.
“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.
The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”
The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.
He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”
“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Newly released documents show that .
The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.
The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.
The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation.
Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.
“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.
In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”
Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016.
Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer.
“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
Credible Medical Use
The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.
Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted.
The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”
The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.
Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.”
Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.
“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
Opposition in Congress
It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.
“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.
The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”
The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.
He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”
“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Newly released documents show that .
The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.
The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.
The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation.
Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.
“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.
In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”
Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016.
Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer.
“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
Credible Medical Use
The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.
Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted.
The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”
The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.
Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.”
Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.
“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
Opposition in Congress
It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.
“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.
The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”
The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.
He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”
“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Vibrating Belt Receives Approval to Help Women With Osteopenia Keep Bone Strength
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a wearable belt device for postmenopausal women with osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis, according to the company’s manufacturer, Bone Health Technologies.
According to the company, the device (Osteoboost) is the first nonpharmacologic device-based, prescription-only treatment for postmenopausal women with low bone density. It has not been tested for ability to reduce fracture risk.
The device is worn around the hips and delivers calibrated mild vibrations to the hips and lumbar spine to help preserve bone strength and density. A vibration pack is mounted to the back of the belt.
FDA approval, announced on January 18, was based on the findings of a National Institutes of Health–funded double-blinded, sham-controlled study of 126 women with low bone density conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The data were shared at the 2023 Endocrine Society and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research annual meetings and published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.
Lead investigator Laura D. Bilek, PT, PhD, associate dean for research and associate professor at the University of Nebraska, and colleagues wrote that the primary outcome measurement was the change in vertebral strength measured by CT scans for women who used the device a minimum of three times per week compared with a sham group who wore a belt that emitted sound but had no vibrations.
Compressive strength and volumetric density of the first lumbar vertebra were analyzed.
In the active-belt group, women lost, on average, 0.48% bone strength, while those in the sham group lost nearly 2.84% (P = .014), about five times as much. Results also showed that participants in the active treatment group who used the device three times per week lost 0.29% bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the 1.97% BMD lost in the control group. No adverse events were reported in the study.
Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist at Rush University in Chicago, told this news organization there’s considerable fear among some patients about long-term use of available medications for bone health, “so any modality that is nontherapeutic — not a pill — is always exciting.”
The endpoints of the study are one good measure, she said, but she emphasized that it will be important to show that the improved bone density from the belt that is described in this study “is a true marker of decreased fracture risk.”
Because there are no apparent side effects, she said it may be effective in combination with weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium, and/or medication, depending on severity of bone loss.
Current medications on the market for osteoporosis have been shown to improve bone strength and reduce fracture risk, she noted.
“It could help; I just don’t think we have enough evidence that it will completely treat the bone loss,” Dr. Khandelwal said.
She said she sees the potential population most interested in the belt as premenopausal women with a family history of bone loss who may not meet the level of bone loss for medical management but are interested in prevention.
“I also think of individuals who might already meet medication needs but are completely averse to being on medication,” she said. The bulk of her practice is treating bone loss, she said, estimating that 20% of her patients do not want to be on medication.
Bone Health Technologies CEO Laura Yecies, MBA, told this news organization the company has not yet set the price for the device and noted that because it will be available by prescription only, out-of-pocket costs and copays will differ. She said the company expects to begin shipping later this year. Requests for update notifications can be made at the company’s website.
Dr. Bilek told this news organization the device was tested for a year, so it’s unclear how long people with osteopenia would need to wear the belt for maximum benefit.
The theory behind the mechanism of action, she said, “is that the vibration actually inhibits the cells [osteoclasts] that take away bone mass.”
The researchers included only postmenopausal women with osteopenia in the study, but Dr. Bilek said she would like to test the device on other groups, such as men with prostate cancer getting testosterone-blocking therapy, which can result in loss of bone density. An estimated 34 million people in the United States have osteopenia.
Dr. Bilek said a next step for the study is to enroll a more diverse cohort at an additional center to test the device because most of the women in this one were White.
She noted that women’s bone mass peaks at age 30 and then starts to decline.
“When women hit menopause, there’s a really rapid decline [in bone strength] for the next 5-7 years and then the decline levels off. If we can slow that decline, hopefully that woman’s bone density is maintained at a higher level throughout their life,” Dr. Bilek said.
Dr. Bilek is a scientific adviser to Bone Health Technologies. She and many coauthors of the study received grants or fees from the company and own stock in or are employees of the company. Ms. Yecies is the founder and CEO of Bone Health Technologies. Dr. Khandelwal had no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a wearable belt device for postmenopausal women with osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis, according to the company’s manufacturer, Bone Health Technologies.
According to the company, the device (Osteoboost) is the first nonpharmacologic device-based, prescription-only treatment for postmenopausal women with low bone density. It has not been tested for ability to reduce fracture risk.
The device is worn around the hips and delivers calibrated mild vibrations to the hips and lumbar spine to help preserve bone strength and density. A vibration pack is mounted to the back of the belt.
FDA approval, announced on January 18, was based on the findings of a National Institutes of Health–funded double-blinded, sham-controlled study of 126 women with low bone density conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The data were shared at the 2023 Endocrine Society and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research annual meetings and published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.
Lead investigator Laura D. Bilek, PT, PhD, associate dean for research and associate professor at the University of Nebraska, and colleagues wrote that the primary outcome measurement was the change in vertebral strength measured by CT scans for women who used the device a minimum of three times per week compared with a sham group who wore a belt that emitted sound but had no vibrations.
Compressive strength and volumetric density of the first lumbar vertebra were analyzed.
In the active-belt group, women lost, on average, 0.48% bone strength, while those in the sham group lost nearly 2.84% (P = .014), about five times as much. Results also showed that participants in the active treatment group who used the device three times per week lost 0.29% bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the 1.97% BMD lost in the control group. No adverse events were reported in the study.
Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist at Rush University in Chicago, told this news organization there’s considerable fear among some patients about long-term use of available medications for bone health, “so any modality that is nontherapeutic — not a pill — is always exciting.”
The endpoints of the study are one good measure, she said, but she emphasized that it will be important to show that the improved bone density from the belt that is described in this study “is a true marker of decreased fracture risk.”
Because there are no apparent side effects, she said it may be effective in combination with weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium, and/or medication, depending on severity of bone loss.
Current medications on the market for osteoporosis have been shown to improve bone strength and reduce fracture risk, she noted.
“It could help; I just don’t think we have enough evidence that it will completely treat the bone loss,” Dr. Khandelwal said.
She said she sees the potential population most interested in the belt as premenopausal women with a family history of bone loss who may not meet the level of bone loss for medical management but are interested in prevention.
“I also think of individuals who might already meet medication needs but are completely averse to being on medication,” she said. The bulk of her practice is treating bone loss, she said, estimating that 20% of her patients do not want to be on medication.
Bone Health Technologies CEO Laura Yecies, MBA, told this news organization the company has not yet set the price for the device and noted that because it will be available by prescription only, out-of-pocket costs and copays will differ. She said the company expects to begin shipping later this year. Requests for update notifications can be made at the company’s website.
Dr. Bilek told this news organization the device was tested for a year, so it’s unclear how long people with osteopenia would need to wear the belt for maximum benefit.
The theory behind the mechanism of action, she said, “is that the vibration actually inhibits the cells [osteoclasts] that take away bone mass.”
The researchers included only postmenopausal women with osteopenia in the study, but Dr. Bilek said she would like to test the device on other groups, such as men with prostate cancer getting testosterone-blocking therapy, which can result in loss of bone density. An estimated 34 million people in the United States have osteopenia.
Dr. Bilek said a next step for the study is to enroll a more diverse cohort at an additional center to test the device because most of the women in this one were White.
She noted that women’s bone mass peaks at age 30 and then starts to decline.
“When women hit menopause, there’s a really rapid decline [in bone strength] for the next 5-7 years and then the decline levels off. If we can slow that decline, hopefully that woman’s bone density is maintained at a higher level throughout their life,” Dr. Bilek said.
Dr. Bilek is a scientific adviser to Bone Health Technologies. She and many coauthors of the study received grants or fees from the company and own stock in or are employees of the company. Ms. Yecies is the founder and CEO of Bone Health Technologies. Dr. Khandelwal had no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a wearable belt device for postmenopausal women with osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis, according to the company’s manufacturer, Bone Health Technologies.
According to the company, the device (Osteoboost) is the first nonpharmacologic device-based, prescription-only treatment for postmenopausal women with low bone density. It has not been tested for ability to reduce fracture risk.
The device is worn around the hips and delivers calibrated mild vibrations to the hips and lumbar spine to help preserve bone strength and density. A vibration pack is mounted to the back of the belt.
FDA approval, announced on January 18, was based on the findings of a National Institutes of Health–funded double-blinded, sham-controlled study of 126 women with low bone density conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The data were shared at the 2023 Endocrine Society and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research annual meetings and published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.
Lead investigator Laura D. Bilek, PT, PhD, associate dean for research and associate professor at the University of Nebraska, and colleagues wrote that the primary outcome measurement was the change in vertebral strength measured by CT scans for women who used the device a minimum of three times per week compared with a sham group who wore a belt that emitted sound but had no vibrations.
Compressive strength and volumetric density of the first lumbar vertebra were analyzed.
In the active-belt group, women lost, on average, 0.48% bone strength, while those in the sham group lost nearly 2.84% (P = .014), about five times as much. Results also showed that participants in the active treatment group who used the device three times per week lost 0.29% bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the 1.97% BMD lost in the control group. No adverse events were reported in the study.
Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist at Rush University in Chicago, told this news organization there’s considerable fear among some patients about long-term use of available medications for bone health, “so any modality that is nontherapeutic — not a pill — is always exciting.”
The endpoints of the study are one good measure, she said, but she emphasized that it will be important to show that the improved bone density from the belt that is described in this study “is a true marker of decreased fracture risk.”
Because there are no apparent side effects, she said it may be effective in combination with weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium, and/or medication, depending on severity of bone loss.
Current medications on the market for osteoporosis have been shown to improve bone strength and reduce fracture risk, she noted.
“It could help; I just don’t think we have enough evidence that it will completely treat the bone loss,” Dr. Khandelwal said.
She said she sees the potential population most interested in the belt as premenopausal women with a family history of bone loss who may not meet the level of bone loss for medical management but are interested in prevention.
“I also think of individuals who might already meet medication needs but are completely averse to being on medication,” she said. The bulk of her practice is treating bone loss, she said, estimating that 20% of her patients do not want to be on medication.
Bone Health Technologies CEO Laura Yecies, MBA, told this news organization the company has not yet set the price for the device and noted that because it will be available by prescription only, out-of-pocket costs and copays will differ. She said the company expects to begin shipping later this year. Requests for update notifications can be made at the company’s website.
Dr. Bilek told this news organization the device was tested for a year, so it’s unclear how long people with osteopenia would need to wear the belt for maximum benefit.
The theory behind the mechanism of action, she said, “is that the vibration actually inhibits the cells [osteoclasts] that take away bone mass.”
The researchers included only postmenopausal women with osteopenia in the study, but Dr. Bilek said she would like to test the device on other groups, such as men with prostate cancer getting testosterone-blocking therapy, which can result in loss of bone density. An estimated 34 million people in the United States have osteopenia.
Dr. Bilek said a next step for the study is to enroll a more diverse cohort at an additional center to test the device because most of the women in this one were White.
She noted that women’s bone mass peaks at age 30 and then starts to decline.
“When women hit menopause, there’s a really rapid decline [in bone strength] for the next 5-7 years and then the decline levels off. If we can slow that decline, hopefully that woman’s bone density is maintained at a higher level throughout their life,” Dr. Bilek said.
Dr. Bilek is a scientific adviser to Bone Health Technologies. She and many coauthors of the study received grants or fees from the company and own stock in or are employees of the company. Ms. Yecies is the founder and CEO of Bone Health Technologies. Dr. Khandelwal had no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hypocalcemia Risk Warning Added to Osteoporosis Drug
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.
This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis.
Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.”
Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.
The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”
If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.
“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises.
Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body.
In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.
This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis.
Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.”
Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.
The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”
If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.
“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises.
Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body.
In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.
This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis.
Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.”
Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.
The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”
If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.
“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises.
Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body.
In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Rejects GI Cancer Drug Over Manufacturing Issues
the company announced January 8.
The monoclonal antibody was under priority review as the first agent specifically for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that is claudin 18.2-positive. Overexpression of claudin 18.2 in gastric cancer cells is associated with tumor growth and progression.
The FDA, however, could not approve zolbetuximab by the planned decision date of January 12, 2024, because of “unresolved deficiencies following its pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for zolbetuximab,” according to the company press release.
Astellas “is working closely with the FDA and the third-party manufacturer to establish a timeline to quickly resolve” the issues, the company said.
Astellas also clarified that the FDA isn’t asking for additional efficacy and safety data. In phase 3 testing, zolbetuximab improved median progression-free and overall survival by about 2-3 months over chemotherapy alone.
If zolbetuximab is approved, “pathologists will have to be facile with claudin 18.2 testing as a companion diagnostic before [it] can be used,” Mark Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, told this news organization.
The agent is also under review in Japan, Europe, and China.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
the company announced January 8.
The monoclonal antibody was under priority review as the first agent specifically for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that is claudin 18.2-positive. Overexpression of claudin 18.2 in gastric cancer cells is associated with tumor growth and progression.
The FDA, however, could not approve zolbetuximab by the planned decision date of January 12, 2024, because of “unresolved deficiencies following its pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for zolbetuximab,” according to the company press release.
Astellas “is working closely with the FDA and the third-party manufacturer to establish a timeline to quickly resolve” the issues, the company said.
Astellas also clarified that the FDA isn’t asking for additional efficacy and safety data. In phase 3 testing, zolbetuximab improved median progression-free and overall survival by about 2-3 months over chemotherapy alone.
If zolbetuximab is approved, “pathologists will have to be facile with claudin 18.2 testing as a companion diagnostic before [it] can be used,” Mark Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, told this news organization.
The agent is also under review in Japan, Europe, and China.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
the company announced January 8.
The monoclonal antibody was under priority review as the first agent specifically for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that is claudin 18.2-positive. Overexpression of claudin 18.2 in gastric cancer cells is associated with tumor growth and progression.
The FDA, however, could not approve zolbetuximab by the planned decision date of January 12, 2024, because of “unresolved deficiencies following its pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for zolbetuximab,” according to the company press release.
Astellas “is working closely with the FDA and the third-party manufacturer to establish a timeline to quickly resolve” the issues, the company said.
Astellas also clarified that the FDA isn’t asking for additional efficacy and safety data. In phase 3 testing, zolbetuximab improved median progression-free and overall survival by about 2-3 months over chemotherapy alone.
If zolbetuximab is approved, “pathologists will have to be facile with claudin 18.2 testing as a companion diagnostic before [it] can be used,” Mark Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, told this news organization.
The agent is also under review in Japan, Europe, and China.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Long COVID Has Caused Thousands of US Deaths: New CDC Data
While COVID has now claimed more than 1 million lives in the United States alone, these aren’t the only fatalities caused at least in part by the virus. A small but growing number of Americans are surviving acute infections only to succumb months later to the lingering health problems caused by long COVID.
Much of the attention on long COVID has centered on the sometimes debilitating symptoms that strike people with the condition, with no formal diagnostic tests or standard treatments available, and the effect it has on quality of life. But new figures from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that long COVID can also be deadly.
More than 5000 Americans have died from long COVID since the start of the pandemic, according to new estimates from the CDC.
This total, based on death certificate data collected by the CDC, includes a preliminary tally of 1491 long COVID deaths in 2023 in addition to 3544 fatalities previously reported from January 2020 through June 2022.
Guidance issued in 2023 on how to formally report long COVID as a cause of death on death certificates should help get a more accurate count of these fatalities going forward, said Robert Anderson, PhD, chief mortality statistician for the CDC, Atlanta, Georgia.
“We hope that the guidance will help cause of death certifiers be more aware of the impact of long COVID and more likely to report long COVID as a cause of death when appropriate,” Dr. Anderson said. “That said, we do not expect that this guidance will have a dramatic impact on the trend.”
There’s no standard definition or diagnostic test for long COVID. It’s typically diagnosed when people have symptoms at least 3 months after an acute infection that weren’t present before they got sick. As of the end of last year, about 7% of American adults had experienced long COVID at some point, the CDC estimated in September 2023.
The new death tally indicates long COVID remains a significant public health threat and is likely to grow in the years ahead, even though the pandemic may no longer be considered a global health crisis, experts said.
For example, the death certificate figures indicate:
COVID-19 was the third leading cause of American deaths in 2020 and 2021, and the fourth leading cause of death in the United States in 2023.
Nearly 1% of the more than one million deaths related to COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic have been attributed to long COVID, according to data released by the CDC.
The proportion of COVID-related deaths from long COVID peaked in June 2021 at 1.2% and again in April 2022 at 3.8%, according to the CDC. Both of these peaks coincided with periods of declining fatalities from acute infections.
“I do expect that deaths associated with long COVID will make up an increasingly larger proportion of total deaths associated with COVID-19,” said Mark Czeisler, PhD, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied long COVID fatalities.
Months and even years after an acute infection, long COVID can contribute to serious and potentially life-threatening conditions that impact nearly every major system in the body, according to the CDC guidelines for identifying the condition on death certificates.
This means long COVID may often be listed as an underlying cause of death when people with this condition die of issues related to their heart, lungs, brain or kidneys, the CDC guidelines noted.
The risk for long COVID fatalities remains elevated for at least 6 months for people with milder acute infections and for at least 2 years in severe cases that require hospitalization, some previous research suggested.
As happens with other acute infections, certain people are more at risk for fatal case of long COVID. Age, race, and ethnicity have all been cited as risk factors by researchers who have been tracking the condition since the start of the pandemic.
Half of long COVID fatalities from July 2021 to June 2022 occurred in people aged 65 years and older, and another 23% were recorded among people aged 50-64 years old, according a report from CDC.
Long COVID death rates also varied by race and ethnicity, from a high of 14.1 cases per million among America Indian and Alaskan natives to a low of 1.5 cases per million among Asian people, the CDC found. Death rates per million were 6.7 for White individuals, 6.4 for Black people, and 4.7 for Hispanic people.
The disproportionate share of Black and Hispanic people who developed and died from severe acute infections may have left fewer survivors to develop long COVID, limiting long COVID fatalities among these groups, the CDC report concluded.
It’s also possible that long COVID fatalities were undercounted in these populations because they faced challenges accessing healthcare or seeing providers who could recognize the hallmark symptoms of long COVID.
It’s also difficult to distinguish between how many deaths related to the virus ultimately occur as a result of long COVID rather than acute infections. That’s because it may depend on a variety of factors, including how consistently medical examiners follow the CDC guidelines, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at the Veterans Affairs, St. Louis Health Care System and a senior clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.
“Long COVID remains massively underdiagnosed, and death in people with long COVID is misattributed to other things,” Dr. Al-Aly said.
An accurate test for long COVID could help lead to a more accurate count of these fatalities, Dr. Czeisler said. Some preliminary research suggests that it might one day be possible to diagnose long COVID with a blood test.
“The timeline for such a test and the extent to which it would be widely applied is uncertain,” Dr. Czeisler noted, “though that would certainly be a gamechanger.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
While COVID has now claimed more than 1 million lives in the United States alone, these aren’t the only fatalities caused at least in part by the virus. A small but growing number of Americans are surviving acute infections only to succumb months later to the lingering health problems caused by long COVID.
Much of the attention on long COVID has centered on the sometimes debilitating symptoms that strike people with the condition, with no formal diagnostic tests or standard treatments available, and the effect it has on quality of life. But new figures from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that long COVID can also be deadly.
More than 5000 Americans have died from long COVID since the start of the pandemic, according to new estimates from the CDC.
This total, based on death certificate data collected by the CDC, includes a preliminary tally of 1491 long COVID deaths in 2023 in addition to 3544 fatalities previously reported from January 2020 through June 2022.
Guidance issued in 2023 on how to formally report long COVID as a cause of death on death certificates should help get a more accurate count of these fatalities going forward, said Robert Anderson, PhD, chief mortality statistician for the CDC, Atlanta, Georgia.
“We hope that the guidance will help cause of death certifiers be more aware of the impact of long COVID and more likely to report long COVID as a cause of death when appropriate,” Dr. Anderson said. “That said, we do not expect that this guidance will have a dramatic impact on the trend.”
There’s no standard definition or diagnostic test for long COVID. It’s typically diagnosed when people have symptoms at least 3 months after an acute infection that weren’t present before they got sick. As of the end of last year, about 7% of American adults had experienced long COVID at some point, the CDC estimated in September 2023.
The new death tally indicates long COVID remains a significant public health threat and is likely to grow in the years ahead, even though the pandemic may no longer be considered a global health crisis, experts said.
For example, the death certificate figures indicate:
COVID-19 was the third leading cause of American deaths in 2020 and 2021, and the fourth leading cause of death in the United States in 2023.
Nearly 1% of the more than one million deaths related to COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic have been attributed to long COVID, according to data released by the CDC.
The proportion of COVID-related deaths from long COVID peaked in June 2021 at 1.2% and again in April 2022 at 3.8%, according to the CDC. Both of these peaks coincided with periods of declining fatalities from acute infections.
“I do expect that deaths associated with long COVID will make up an increasingly larger proportion of total deaths associated with COVID-19,” said Mark Czeisler, PhD, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied long COVID fatalities.
Months and even years after an acute infection, long COVID can contribute to serious and potentially life-threatening conditions that impact nearly every major system in the body, according to the CDC guidelines for identifying the condition on death certificates.
This means long COVID may often be listed as an underlying cause of death when people with this condition die of issues related to their heart, lungs, brain or kidneys, the CDC guidelines noted.
The risk for long COVID fatalities remains elevated for at least 6 months for people with milder acute infections and for at least 2 years in severe cases that require hospitalization, some previous research suggested.
As happens with other acute infections, certain people are more at risk for fatal case of long COVID. Age, race, and ethnicity have all been cited as risk factors by researchers who have been tracking the condition since the start of the pandemic.
Half of long COVID fatalities from July 2021 to June 2022 occurred in people aged 65 years and older, and another 23% were recorded among people aged 50-64 years old, according a report from CDC.
Long COVID death rates also varied by race and ethnicity, from a high of 14.1 cases per million among America Indian and Alaskan natives to a low of 1.5 cases per million among Asian people, the CDC found. Death rates per million were 6.7 for White individuals, 6.4 for Black people, and 4.7 for Hispanic people.
The disproportionate share of Black and Hispanic people who developed and died from severe acute infections may have left fewer survivors to develop long COVID, limiting long COVID fatalities among these groups, the CDC report concluded.
It’s also possible that long COVID fatalities were undercounted in these populations because they faced challenges accessing healthcare or seeing providers who could recognize the hallmark symptoms of long COVID.
It’s also difficult to distinguish between how many deaths related to the virus ultimately occur as a result of long COVID rather than acute infections. That’s because it may depend on a variety of factors, including how consistently medical examiners follow the CDC guidelines, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at the Veterans Affairs, St. Louis Health Care System and a senior clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.
“Long COVID remains massively underdiagnosed, and death in people with long COVID is misattributed to other things,” Dr. Al-Aly said.
An accurate test for long COVID could help lead to a more accurate count of these fatalities, Dr. Czeisler said. Some preliminary research suggests that it might one day be possible to diagnose long COVID with a blood test.
“The timeline for such a test and the extent to which it would be widely applied is uncertain,” Dr. Czeisler noted, “though that would certainly be a gamechanger.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
While COVID has now claimed more than 1 million lives in the United States alone, these aren’t the only fatalities caused at least in part by the virus. A small but growing number of Americans are surviving acute infections only to succumb months later to the lingering health problems caused by long COVID.
Much of the attention on long COVID has centered on the sometimes debilitating symptoms that strike people with the condition, with no formal diagnostic tests or standard treatments available, and the effect it has on quality of life. But new figures from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that long COVID can also be deadly.
More than 5000 Americans have died from long COVID since the start of the pandemic, according to new estimates from the CDC.
This total, based on death certificate data collected by the CDC, includes a preliminary tally of 1491 long COVID deaths in 2023 in addition to 3544 fatalities previously reported from January 2020 through June 2022.
Guidance issued in 2023 on how to formally report long COVID as a cause of death on death certificates should help get a more accurate count of these fatalities going forward, said Robert Anderson, PhD, chief mortality statistician for the CDC, Atlanta, Georgia.
“We hope that the guidance will help cause of death certifiers be more aware of the impact of long COVID and more likely to report long COVID as a cause of death when appropriate,” Dr. Anderson said. “That said, we do not expect that this guidance will have a dramatic impact on the trend.”
There’s no standard definition or diagnostic test for long COVID. It’s typically diagnosed when people have symptoms at least 3 months after an acute infection that weren’t present before they got sick. As of the end of last year, about 7% of American adults had experienced long COVID at some point, the CDC estimated in September 2023.
The new death tally indicates long COVID remains a significant public health threat and is likely to grow in the years ahead, even though the pandemic may no longer be considered a global health crisis, experts said.
For example, the death certificate figures indicate:
COVID-19 was the third leading cause of American deaths in 2020 and 2021, and the fourth leading cause of death in the United States in 2023.
Nearly 1% of the more than one million deaths related to COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic have been attributed to long COVID, according to data released by the CDC.
The proportion of COVID-related deaths from long COVID peaked in June 2021 at 1.2% and again in April 2022 at 3.8%, according to the CDC. Both of these peaks coincided with periods of declining fatalities from acute infections.
“I do expect that deaths associated with long COVID will make up an increasingly larger proportion of total deaths associated with COVID-19,” said Mark Czeisler, PhD, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied long COVID fatalities.
Months and even years after an acute infection, long COVID can contribute to serious and potentially life-threatening conditions that impact nearly every major system in the body, according to the CDC guidelines for identifying the condition on death certificates.
This means long COVID may often be listed as an underlying cause of death when people with this condition die of issues related to their heart, lungs, brain or kidneys, the CDC guidelines noted.
The risk for long COVID fatalities remains elevated for at least 6 months for people with milder acute infections and for at least 2 years in severe cases that require hospitalization, some previous research suggested.
As happens with other acute infections, certain people are more at risk for fatal case of long COVID. Age, race, and ethnicity have all been cited as risk factors by researchers who have been tracking the condition since the start of the pandemic.
Half of long COVID fatalities from July 2021 to June 2022 occurred in people aged 65 years and older, and another 23% were recorded among people aged 50-64 years old, according a report from CDC.
Long COVID death rates also varied by race and ethnicity, from a high of 14.1 cases per million among America Indian and Alaskan natives to a low of 1.5 cases per million among Asian people, the CDC found. Death rates per million were 6.7 for White individuals, 6.4 for Black people, and 4.7 for Hispanic people.
The disproportionate share of Black and Hispanic people who developed and died from severe acute infections may have left fewer survivors to develop long COVID, limiting long COVID fatalities among these groups, the CDC report concluded.
It’s also possible that long COVID fatalities were undercounted in these populations because they faced challenges accessing healthcare or seeing providers who could recognize the hallmark symptoms of long COVID.
It’s also difficult to distinguish between how many deaths related to the virus ultimately occur as a result of long COVID rather than acute infections. That’s because it may depend on a variety of factors, including how consistently medical examiners follow the CDC guidelines, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at the Veterans Affairs, St. Louis Health Care System and a senior clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.
“Long COVID remains massively underdiagnosed, and death in people with long COVID is misattributed to other things,” Dr. Al-Aly said.
An accurate test for long COVID could help lead to a more accurate count of these fatalities, Dr. Czeisler said. Some preliminary research suggests that it might one day be possible to diagnose long COVID with a blood test.
“The timeline for such a test and the extent to which it would be widely applied is uncertain,” Dr. Czeisler noted, “though that would certainly be a gamechanger.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cluster of Eye Syphilis Cases Prompts CDC Concern
, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
With the incidence of syphilis infection in women increasing in the United States, experts are asking clinicians to be on the lookout for unusual ocular presentations.
“This is the first time such a cluster has been reported in the US,” the International Society for Infectious Diseases posted on ProMED.
Five women in Southwest Michigan who had a common male sex partner developed syphilis infections in their eyes. No new cases have been found related to these five cases after the women and the man received medical care.
If left untreated, the bacterium, Treponema pallidum, can infect the eyes, the ears, and the central nervous system.
The women, identified as non-Hispanic White, were aged 40-60 years and were not infected with HIV. They were diagnosed with early-stage syphilis and all were hospitalized and treated with intravenous penicillin. Routes of sexual exposure among the women included anal (40%), oral (40%), and vaginal (100%), the report states.
The common male sex partner they all met online was found to have early latent syphilis but never developed ocular syphilis.
It is not the eyes that are being exposed. Rather, it is an ocular presentation brought about by a systemic infection carried through the bloodstream after sexual exposure, explains William Nettleton, MD, MPH, medical director of the Kalamazoo and Calhoun public health departments in Michigan and lead author of the report.
“If we screen, identify, and treat syphilis promptly, we can prevent systemic manifestations,” he says.
Clinicians should be aware that the ocular manifestations can come at different stages of syphilis. “For patients you think may have ocular syphilis,” Dr. Nettleton says, “an immediate ophthalmologic evaluation is indicated.”
Symptoms Differed
The five women presented with a variety of symptoms.
Multiple attempts to contact the male partner by telephone and text were made by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, but he did not respond. Local public health physicians reviewed the man’s electronic health record and discovered that he had sought care at a hospital emergency department in January 2022 for ulcerative penile and anal lesions.
He reported having multiple female sex partners during the previous 12 months but declined to disclose their identities; he reported no male or transgender sexual contact, according to the CDC report. Eventually he agreed to an evaluation, was found to have early latent syphilis, and was treated with penicillin.
Cases of syphilis have been soaring in the United States in recent years, reaching a 70-year high.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
With the incidence of syphilis infection in women increasing in the United States, experts are asking clinicians to be on the lookout for unusual ocular presentations.
“This is the first time such a cluster has been reported in the US,” the International Society for Infectious Diseases posted on ProMED.
Five women in Southwest Michigan who had a common male sex partner developed syphilis infections in their eyes. No new cases have been found related to these five cases after the women and the man received medical care.
If left untreated, the bacterium, Treponema pallidum, can infect the eyes, the ears, and the central nervous system.
The women, identified as non-Hispanic White, were aged 40-60 years and were not infected with HIV. They were diagnosed with early-stage syphilis and all were hospitalized and treated with intravenous penicillin. Routes of sexual exposure among the women included anal (40%), oral (40%), and vaginal (100%), the report states.
The common male sex partner they all met online was found to have early latent syphilis but never developed ocular syphilis.
It is not the eyes that are being exposed. Rather, it is an ocular presentation brought about by a systemic infection carried through the bloodstream after sexual exposure, explains William Nettleton, MD, MPH, medical director of the Kalamazoo and Calhoun public health departments in Michigan and lead author of the report.
“If we screen, identify, and treat syphilis promptly, we can prevent systemic manifestations,” he says.
Clinicians should be aware that the ocular manifestations can come at different stages of syphilis. “For patients you think may have ocular syphilis,” Dr. Nettleton says, “an immediate ophthalmologic evaluation is indicated.”
Symptoms Differed
The five women presented with a variety of symptoms.
Multiple attempts to contact the male partner by telephone and text were made by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, but he did not respond. Local public health physicians reviewed the man’s electronic health record and discovered that he had sought care at a hospital emergency department in January 2022 for ulcerative penile and anal lesions.
He reported having multiple female sex partners during the previous 12 months but declined to disclose their identities; he reported no male or transgender sexual contact, according to the CDC report. Eventually he agreed to an evaluation, was found to have early latent syphilis, and was treated with penicillin.
Cases of syphilis have been soaring in the United States in recent years, reaching a 70-year high.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
With the incidence of syphilis infection in women increasing in the United States, experts are asking clinicians to be on the lookout for unusual ocular presentations.
“This is the first time such a cluster has been reported in the US,” the International Society for Infectious Diseases posted on ProMED.
Five women in Southwest Michigan who had a common male sex partner developed syphilis infections in their eyes. No new cases have been found related to these five cases after the women and the man received medical care.
If left untreated, the bacterium, Treponema pallidum, can infect the eyes, the ears, and the central nervous system.
The women, identified as non-Hispanic White, were aged 40-60 years and were not infected with HIV. They were diagnosed with early-stage syphilis and all were hospitalized and treated with intravenous penicillin. Routes of sexual exposure among the women included anal (40%), oral (40%), and vaginal (100%), the report states.
The common male sex partner they all met online was found to have early latent syphilis but never developed ocular syphilis.
It is not the eyes that are being exposed. Rather, it is an ocular presentation brought about by a systemic infection carried through the bloodstream after sexual exposure, explains William Nettleton, MD, MPH, medical director of the Kalamazoo and Calhoun public health departments in Michigan and lead author of the report.
“If we screen, identify, and treat syphilis promptly, we can prevent systemic manifestations,” he says.
Clinicians should be aware that the ocular manifestations can come at different stages of syphilis. “For patients you think may have ocular syphilis,” Dr. Nettleton says, “an immediate ophthalmologic evaluation is indicated.”
Symptoms Differed
The five women presented with a variety of symptoms.
Multiple attempts to contact the male partner by telephone and text were made by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, but he did not respond. Local public health physicians reviewed the man’s electronic health record and discovered that he had sought care at a hospital emergency department in January 2022 for ulcerative penile and anal lesions.
He reported having multiple female sex partners during the previous 12 months but declined to disclose their identities; he reported no male or transgender sexual contact, according to the CDC report. Eventually he agreed to an evaluation, was found to have early latent syphilis, and was treated with penicillin.
Cases of syphilis have been soaring in the United States in recent years, reaching a 70-year high.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM MMWR
FDA approves implant for glaucoma
The iDose TR (Glaukos Corp) is inserted into a corneal incision on the temple side of the eye. Pivotal phase 3 clinical trials showed the treatment resulted in sustained reductions in IOP for 3 months ranging from 6.6 to 8.4 mm Hg, comparable to reductions with topical timolol 0.5% drops used twice daily. Normal IOP is 10-21 mm Hg, and glaucoma treatments are designed to reduce high IOP into the normal range.
Glaukos Corp said that it intends a commercial launch of the implant early in 2024, with a wholesale cost of $13,950 per implant.
Travoprost is a prostaglandin analog that has been long used as a topical formulation for lowering IOP in OAG and OHT. Timolol is a topical beta-blocker widely used for the same indications.
iDose TR comes in a preloaded handheld injector designed to deliver the implant into the sclera of the eye. The implant seats in the junction of the iris, sclera, and cornea.
In two phase 3 clinical trials, 81% of patients who received the iDose TR did not require supplemental drops to reduce IOP after 12 months compared with 95% of those who receive timolol alone.
The phase 3 trials included 1150 participants across 89 clinical sites. Both trials, GC-010 and GC-012, met the primary endpoints through 3 months and demonstrated a favorable tolerability and safety profile through 12 months, according to results that John Berdahl, MD, a researcher with Vance Thompson Vision in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and an investigator for Glaukos, presented in May at the annual meeting of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery.
Based on these outcomes, the FDA concluded in the prescribing information that iDose TR demonstrated noninferiority to topical timolol in reduction of IOP during the first 3 months of treatment. The agency also noted that use of iDose TR did not demonstrate noninferiority over the next 9 months.
In the controlled studies, the most common ocular adverse reactions reported in 2% to 6% of patients who received iDose TR were increases in IOP , iritis, dry eye, and defects of the visual field, most of which were said to be mild and transient in nature.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The iDose TR (Glaukos Corp) is inserted into a corneal incision on the temple side of the eye. Pivotal phase 3 clinical trials showed the treatment resulted in sustained reductions in IOP for 3 months ranging from 6.6 to 8.4 mm Hg, comparable to reductions with topical timolol 0.5% drops used twice daily. Normal IOP is 10-21 mm Hg, and glaucoma treatments are designed to reduce high IOP into the normal range.
Glaukos Corp said that it intends a commercial launch of the implant early in 2024, with a wholesale cost of $13,950 per implant.
Travoprost is a prostaglandin analog that has been long used as a topical formulation for lowering IOP in OAG and OHT. Timolol is a topical beta-blocker widely used for the same indications.
iDose TR comes in a preloaded handheld injector designed to deliver the implant into the sclera of the eye. The implant seats in the junction of the iris, sclera, and cornea.
In two phase 3 clinical trials, 81% of patients who received the iDose TR did not require supplemental drops to reduce IOP after 12 months compared with 95% of those who receive timolol alone.
The phase 3 trials included 1150 participants across 89 clinical sites. Both trials, GC-010 and GC-012, met the primary endpoints through 3 months and demonstrated a favorable tolerability and safety profile through 12 months, according to results that John Berdahl, MD, a researcher with Vance Thompson Vision in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and an investigator for Glaukos, presented in May at the annual meeting of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery.
Based on these outcomes, the FDA concluded in the prescribing information that iDose TR demonstrated noninferiority to topical timolol in reduction of IOP during the first 3 months of treatment. The agency also noted that use of iDose TR did not demonstrate noninferiority over the next 9 months.
In the controlled studies, the most common ocular adverse reactions reported in 2% to 6% of patients who received iDose TR were increases in IOP , iritis, dry eye, and defects of the visual field, most of which were said to be mild and transient in nature.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The iDose TR (Glaukos Corp) is inserted into a corneal incision on the temple side of the eye. Pivotal phase 3 clinical trials showed the treatment resulted in sustained reductions in IOP for 3 months ranging from 6.6 to 8.4 mm Hg, comparable to reductions with topical timolol 0.5% drops used twice daily. Normal IOP is 10-21 mm Hg, and glaucoma treatments are designed to reduce high IOP into the normal range.
Glaukos Corp said that it intends a commercial launch of the implant early in 2024, with a wholesale cost of $13,950 per implant.
Travoprost is a prostaglandin analog that has been long used as a topical formulation for lowering IOP in OAG and OHT. Timolol is a topical beta-blocker widely used for the same indications.
iDose TR comes in a preloaded handheld injector designed to deliver the implant into the sclera of the eye. The implant seats in the junction of the iris, sclera, and cornea.
In two phase 3 clinical trials, 81% of patients who received the iDose TR did not require supplemental drops to reduce IOP after 12 months compared with 95% of those who receive timolol alone.
The phase 3 trials included 1150 participants across 89 clinical sites. Both trials, GC-010 and GC-012, met the primary endpoints through 3 months and demonstrated a favorable tolerability and safety profile through 12 months, according to results that John Berdahl, MD, a researcher with Vance Thompson Vision in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and an investigator for Glaukos, presented in May at the annual meeting of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery.
Based on these outcomes, the FDA concluded in the prescribing information that iDose TR demonstrated noninferiority to topical timolol in reduction of IOP during the first 3 months of treatment. The agency also noted that use of iDose TR did not demonstrate noninferiority over the next 9 months.
In the controlled studies, the most common ocular adverse reactions reported in 2% to 6% of patients who received iDose TR were increases in IOP , iritis, dry eye, and defects of the visual field, most of which were said to be mild and transient in nature.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.