As the systematic dismantling of the U.S. vaccine schedule escalates, the demands to hold Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy accountable are growing. Claiming that Kennedy has turned his back on science and is endangering public health, Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., formally introduced articles of impeachment against him Dec. 10 for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Under the Constitution, federal officials can only be impeached for treason, bribery and “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Disorganization resulting from last-minute changes to voting questions involving new recommendations for hepatitis B virus vaccines created a moment of déjà vu Dec. 4 when the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 6-3 to once again delay its votes on whether the current recommended birth dose should be pushed back.
“Do not take us backwards,” many doctors and other stakeholders implored the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices ahead of its meeting that starts Dec. 4 with a day-long discussion and votes on whether the current recommended birth dose of the hepatitis B virus vaccine should be delayed.
So much for stability at the U.S. FDA. Three weeks after accepting the position as director of the FDA’s CDER, Richard Pazdur has informed the agency of his intention to retire at the end of the year.
The next stop on the comeback tour for the U.S. FDA’s Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher program is the Senate, after the House unanimously passed the Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act, H.R. 1262, Dec. 1.
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy continued his last-minute musical chairs ahead of the Dec. 4-5 meeting of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) when he named Kirk Milhoan as the new chair of the panel that advises the CDC on vaccine schedules.
Both the FDA and the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices are on the threshold of revising how vaccines are approved and used in the U.S., but whether that opens to a precipice or a new era of stronger evidence and safer use is in the telling of the beholder.
The Sept. 4, 2015, at-risk launch of Sandoz Inc.’s Zarxio as the first biosimilar to hit the U.S. market came several months after the FDA had approved the filgrastim biosimilar due to a court battle over the requirements of the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, which laid out the rules of the road for the new class of follow-on drugs. Ten years later, biosimilar developers are still struggling with some of those rules that were drafted by Congress in an effort to balance competition with innovation in the biologics space. Insulin biosimilars may be the hardest hit.
It’s been a decade since Sandoz Inc. launched Zarxio, referencing Amgen Inc.’s Neupogen (filgrastim), as the first biosimilar in the U.S. Zarxio was expected to be the beginning of a biosimilar boom that would deliver big savings by finally providing direct competition for costly biologics. Neither the pipeline nor the uptake of biosimilars has lived up to expectations, as only 6% of the 313 biologics approved by the FDA’s CDER have been targeted by biosimilars and fewer than 5% are actually competing with the follow-ons.
Sandoz Inc. came out the big winner Nov. 18 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit wiped out $39 million in infringement damages a jury had awarded to Allergan plc. Sandoz overcame “the doubly high burden of persuading us to overturn a jury verdict of no invalidity,” the appellate court said in its precedential opinion.
