COVID-19 Pill Paxlovid Moves Closer to Full FDA Approval

FILE - Doses of the anti-viral drug Paxlovid are displayed in New York, on Monday, Aug. 1, 2022. (AP Photo/Stephanie Nano, File)
FILE - Doses of the anti-viral drug Paxlovid are displayed in New York, on Monday, Aug. 1, 2022. (AP Photo/Stephanie Nano, File)
TT

COVID-19 Pill Paxlovid Moves Closer to Full FDA Approval

FILE - Doses of the anti-viral drug Paxlovid are displayed in New York, on Monday, Aug. 1, 2022. (AP Photo/Stephanie Nano, File)
FILE - Doses of the anti-viral drug Paxlovid are displayed in New York, on Monday, Aug. 1, 2022. (AP Photo/Stephanie Nano, File)

Pfizer’s COVID-19 pill Paxlovid won another vote of confidence from US health advisers Thursday, clearing the way for its full regulatory approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

The medication has been used by millions of Americans since the FDA granted it emergency use authorization in late 2021. The agency has the final say on giving Pfizer’s drug full approval and is expected to decide by May, The Associated Press.

A panel of outside experts voted 16-1 that Paxlovid remains a safe and effective treatment for high-risk adults with COVID-19 who are more likely to face hospitalization and death due to the virus.

“We still have many groups that stand to benefit from Paxlovid, including unvaccinated persons, under-vaccinated persons, the elderly and the immuno-compromised,” said Dr. Richard Murphy of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The FDA said using Paxlovid in high-risk patients could prevent 1,500 COVID-19 deaths and 13,000 hospitalizations per week.

The panel’s positive vote was widely expected, given that Paxlovid has been the go-to treatment against COVID-19, especially since an entire group of antibody drugs has been sidelined as the virus mutated.

The US continues reporting about 4,000 deaths and 35,000 hospitalizations weekly, the FDA noted.

The agency asked its panel of independent medical experts to address several lingering questions involving Paxlovid, including which people currently benefit from treatment and whether the drug plays a role in cases of COVID-19 rebound.

The panel agreed with assessments by both the FDA and Pfizer that found no clear link between the use of Paxlovid and returning symptoms, but said more information is needed from studies and medical records data. High-profile cases drew attention to the issue last year, including President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden.

Between 10% and 16% of patients across multiple Pfizer studies had symptoms return, regardless of whether they’d received Paxlovid or a dummy pill. Such cases “likely reflect natural COVID-19 progression,” the FDA concluded.

The federal government has purchased more than 20 million doses of Paxlovid and encouraged health professionals to prescribe it aggressively to help prevent severe COVID-19. But that’s led to concerns of overprescribing and questions of whether some patients are needlessly getting the drug.

Pfizer originally studied Paxlovid in the highest-risk COVID-19 patients: unvaccinated adults with other health problems and no evidence of prior coronavirus infection. But that doesn’t reflect the US population today, where an estimated 95% of people have protection from at least one vaccine dose, a prior infection or both.

The FDA reviewed Pfizer data showing Paxlovid made no meaningful difference in otherwise healthy adults, whether or not they’d been previously vaccinated.

But when FDA teased out data for high-risk adults — regardless of their vaccination or infection history — Paxlovid still showed a significant benefit, reducing the chance of hospitalization or death between 60% and 85%, depending on individual circumstances. Patients in that group included seniors and those with serious health problems, such as diabetes, obesity, lung disease and immune-system disorders.

With so many different factors, panelists said prescribing Paxlovid will remain a case-by-case decision.

Dr. Sankar Swaminathan of the University of Utah and other panelists stressed the importance of managing potentially dangerous drug interactions between Paxlovid and other commonly used medications.



Blood Tests Allow 30-year Estimates of Women's Cardio Risks, New Study Says

A woman jogs in a park in Saint-Sebastien-sur-Loire near Nantes, France January 19, 2024. REUTERS/Stephane Mahe/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights
A woman jogs in a park in Saint-Sebastien-sur-Loire near Nantes, France January 19, 2024. REUTERS/Stephane Mahe/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights
TT

Blood Tests Allow 30-year Estimates of Women's Cardio Risks, New Study Says

A woman jogs in a park in Saint-Sebastien-sur-Loire near Nantes, France January 19, 2024. REUTERS/Stephane Mahe/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights
A woman jogs in a park in Saint-Sebastien-sur-Loire near Nantes, France January 19, 2024. REUTERS/Stephane Mahe/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights

Women’s heart disease risks and their need to start taking preventive medications should be evaluated when they are in their 30s rather than well after menopause as is now the practice, said researchers who published a study on Saturday.

Presenting the findings at the European Society of Cardiology annual meeting in London, they said the study showed for the first time that simple blood tests make it possible to estimate a woman’s risk of cardiovascular disease over the next three decades.

"This is good for patients first and foremost, but it is also important information for (manufacturers of) cholesterol lowering drugs, anti-inflammatory drugs, and lipoprotein(a)lowering drugs - the implications for therapy are broad," said study leader Dr. Paul Ridker of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Reuters reported.

Current guidelines “suggest to physicians that women should generally not be considered for preventive therapies until their 60s and 70s. These new data... clearly demonstrate that our guidelines need to change,” Ridker said. “We must move beyond discussions of 5 or 10 year risk."

The 27,939 participants in the long-term Women’s Health Initiative study had blood tests between 1992 and 1995 for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C or “bad cholesterol”), which are already a part of routine care.

They also had tests for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) - a marker of blood vessel inflammation - and lipoprotein(a), a genetically determined type of fat.

Compared to risks in women with the lowest levels of each marker, risks for major cardiovascular events like heart attacks or strokes over the next 30 years were 36% higher in women with the highest levels of LDL-C, 70% higher in women with the highest levels of hsCRP, and 33% higher in those with the highest levels of lipoprotein(a).

Women in whom all three markers were in the highest range were 2.6 times more likely to have a major cardiovascular event and 3.7 times more likely to have a stroke over the next three decades, according to a report of the study in The New England Journal of Medicine published to coincide with the presentation at the meeting.

“The three biomarkers are fully independent of each other and tell us about different biologic issues each individual woman faces,” Ridker said.

“The therapies we might use in response to an elevation in each biomarker are markedly different, and physicians can now specifically target the individual person’s biologic problem.”

While drugs that lower LDL-C and hsCRP are widely available - including statins and certain pills for high blood pressure and heart failure - drugs that reduce lipoprotein(a) levels are still in development by companies, including Novartis , Amgen , Eli Lilly and London-based Silence Therapeutics.

In some cases, lifestyle changes such as exercising and quitting smoking can be helpful.

Most of the women in the study were white Americans, but the findings would likely “have even greater impact among Black and Hispanic women for whom there is even a higher prevalence of undetected and untreated inflammation,” Ridker said.

“This is a global problem,” he added. “We need universal screening for hsCRP ... and for lipoprotein(a), just as we already have universal screening for cholesterol.”