Last fall, before being named the senior U.S. health official, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the Trump administration would liberate Americans from the FDA’s “aggressive suppression” of vitamins, dietary supplements, and other substances — ending the federal agency’s “war on public health,” as he put it.

In fact, the FDA can’t even require that supplements be effective before they are sold. When Congress, at the agency’s urging, last considered legislation to require makers of vitamins, herbal remedies, and other pills and potions to show proof of their safety and worth before marketing the products, it got more negative mail, phone calls, and telegrams than at any time since the Vietnam War, by some accounts. The backlash resulted in a 1994 law that enabled the dietary supplement industry to put its products on the market without testing and to tout unproven benefits, as long as the touting doesn’t include claims to treat or cure a disease. Annual industry revenues have grown from $4 billion to $70 billion since.

With Kennedy now in the driver’s seat, the industry will likely expect more: It aims to make bolder health claims for its products and even get the government, private insurers, and flexible spending accounts to pay for supplements, essentially putting them on an equal footing with FDA-approved pharmaceuticals.

On Feb. 13, the day Kennedy was sworn in as secretary of Health and Human Services, President Donald Trump issued a “Make America Healthy Again” agenda targeting alleged corruption in health regulatory agencies and instructing them to “ensure the availability of expanded treatment options and the flexibility for health insurance coverage to provide benefits that support beneficial lifestyle changes and disease prevention.”

Kennedy has said exercise, dietary supplements, and nutrition, rather than pharmaceutical products, are key to good health. Supplement makers want consumers to be able to use programs like health savings accounts, Medicare, and even benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to pay for such items as vitamins, fish oil, protein powders, and probiotics.

“Essentially they’re seeking a government subsidy,” said Pieter Cohen, a Harvard University physician who studies supplements.

As the Senate Finance Committee questioned Kennedy during his Jan. 29 confirmation hearing, supporters in the Alliance for Natural Health lunched on quinoa salad in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center and crowed that the moment had finally arrived for their health freedom movement, which has combined libertarian capitalism and mistrust of the medical establishment to champion unregulated compounds since the 19th century.

“The greatest opportunity of our lifetimes is before us,” said Jonathan Emord, the group’s general counsel, who has brought many successful lawsuits against the FDA’s restrictions on unproven health claims. “RFK has dedicated his whole life to opposing the undue influence” of the pharmaceutical industry and “assuring that our interests triumph,” Emord said.

In speeches and in a pamphlet called “The MAHA Mandate,” Emord and alliance founder Robert Verkerk said Kennedy would free companies to make greater claims for their products’ alleged benefits. Emord said his group was preparing to sue the FDA to prevent it from restricting non-pharmaceutical production of substances like biopeptides — complex molecules related to drugs like Ozempic.

HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon did not respond to a request for comment on the agency’s plans vis-à-vis dietary supplements.

While the basic law governing the FDA establishes that a substance alleged to have treatment or curative effects is by definition a “drug,” and therefore comes under the agency’s requirements for high standards of scientific evidence, the new administration could reallocate money away from enforcement, said Mitch Zeller, former head of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products.

As a Senate aide early in his career, Zeller investigated a tainted L-tryptophan supplement that killed at least 30 people and sickened thousands in the U.S. in 1989. The scandal led the FDA to seek heavier regulation of supplements, but a powerful backlash resulted in the relatively weak supplements law of 1994.

Even that law’s enforcement could be undercut with a stroke of the pen that would keep FDA inspectors out of the field, Zeller said.

Sweeping changes couldn’t come too soon for Nathan Jones, founder and CEO of Xlear, a company that makes products containing xylitol, an artificial sweetener. The Federal Trade Commission sued Xlear in 2021 for making what it called false claims that its nasal spray could prevent and treat covid.

Jones points to a handful of studies evaluating whether xylitol prevents cavities and infections, saying the FDA would require overly expensive studies to get xylitol approved as a drug. Meanwhile, he said, dentists have been bought out by “Big Toothpaste.”

One can hardly find any products “without fluoride for oral health,” he said. “Crest and Colgate don’t want it to happen,” he said.

Kennedy’s desire to rid water supplies of fluoride because of its alleged impact on children’s IQ is welcome news, he said, and not only because it could highlight the value of his products. Jones stresses, as do many health freedom advocates, that clean air and water and unadulterated food do more to prevent and cure disease than vaccines and drugs. For example, he and other advocates claim, wrongly, that the United States eliminated the crippling disease polio through better sanitation, not vaccination.

The Alliance for Natural Health hopes that in lieu of strict FDA standards, Kennedy will enable companies to make expanded marketing claims based on evidence from non-FDA sources, Verkerk said, such as the National Institutes of Health’s nutritional information site, which describes the pros and cons of different supplements.

Kennedy has also called for relaxing the strictures on psychedelic drugs, which interest some veterans as potential remedies for such conditions as post-traumatic stress disorder. VETS, a San Diego-based organization, has paid for 1,000 veterans to get treatment with the powerful hallucinogen ibogaine at clinics in Mexico and other countries, said the group’s co-founder Amber Capone.

She got involved after her husband, a retired Navy SEAL, pulled out of a suicidal spiral after spending a week at an ibogaine clinic near Tijuana, Mexico, in 2017. She wants NIH, the Defense Department, and the Department of Veterans Affairs to fund research on the illegal substance — which can cause cardiac complications and is listed as a Schedule I drug, on par with heroin and LSD — so it can be made legally available when appropriate.

Coincidentally, the push for less onerous standards on supplements and psychedelics would come while Kennedy is demanding “gold-standard science” to review preservatives and other food additives that he has said could play a role in the country’s high rate of chronic diseases.

“Put aside the fact that there’s precious little evidence to support” that idea, said Stuart Pape, a former FDA food center attorney. “There’s been no indication they want the same rigor for supplements and nutraceuticals.”

Although most of these products don’t have major safety concerns, “we have no idea which products work, so in the best case people are throwing away a ton of money,” Zeller said. “The worst-case scenario is they are relying on unproven products to treat underlying conditions, and time is going by when they could have been using more effective FDA-authorized products for diseases.”

Supplement makers aren’t entirely unified. Groups such as the Consumer Healthcare Products Association and the Council for Responsible Nutrition have advocated for the FDA to crack down on products that are unsafe or falsely represented. The Alliance for Natural Health and the Natural Products Association, meanwhile, largely want the government to get out of the way.

“The time has come to embrace a radical shift — from reactive disease management to proactive health cultivation, from top-down public health diktats to personalized, individual-centric care,” Emord and Verkerk state in their “MAHA Mandate.”

The post With RFK Jr. in Charge, Supplement Makers See Chance To Cash In appeared first on Medika Life.

Even a peep of news about a new flu pandemic is enough to set scientists clucking about eggs.

They worried about them in 2005, and in 2009, and they’re worrying now. That’s because millions of fertilized hen eggs are still the main ingredient in making vaccines that, hopefully, will protect people against the outbreak of a new flu strain.

“It’s almost comical to be using a 1940s technology for a 21^st-century pandemic,” said Rick Bright, who led the Health and Human Services Department’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) during the Trump administration.

It’s not so funny, he said, when the currently stockpiled formulation against the H5N1 bird flu virus requires two shots and a whopping 90 micrograms of antigen, yet provides just middling immunity. “For the U.S. alone, it would take hens laying 900,000 eggs every single day for nine months,” Bright said.

And that’s only if the chickens don’t get infected.

The spread of an avian flu virus has decimated flocks of birds (and killed barn cats and other mammals). Cattle in at least nine states and at least three people in the U.S. have been infected, enough to bring public health attention once again to the potential for a global pandemic.

As of May 30, the only confirmed human cases of infection were dairy workers in Texas and Michigan, who experienced eye irritation. Two quickly recovered, while the third developed respiratory symptoms and was being treated with an antiviral drug at home. The virus’s spread into multiple species over a vast geographic area, however, raises the threat that further mutations could create a virus that spreads from human to human through airborne transmission.

If they do, prevention starts with the egg.

EMAIL SIGN-UP

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing. Your Email AddressSIGN UP

To make raw material for an influenza vaccine, virus is grown in millions of fertilized eggs. Sometimes it doesn’t grow well, or it mutates to a degree that the vaccine product stimulates antibodies that don’t neutralize the virus — or the wild virus mutates to an extent that the vaccine doesn’t work against it. And there’s always the frightening prospect that wild birds could carry the virus into the henhouses needed in vaccine production.

“Once those roosters and hens go down, you have no vaccine,” Bright said.

Since 2009, when an H1N1 swine flu pandemic swept around the world before vaccine production could get off the ground, researchers and governments have been looking for alternatives. Billions of dollars have been invested into vaccines produced in mammalian and insect cell lines that don’t pose the same risks as egg-based shots.

“Everyone knows the cell-based vaccines are better, more immunogenic, and offer better production,” said Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security. “But they are handicapped because of the clout of egg-based manufacturing.”

The companies that make the cell-based influenza vaccines, CSL Seqirus and Sanofi, also have billions invested in egg-based production lines that they aren’t eager to replace. And it’s hard to blame them, said Nicole Lurie, HHS’ assistant secretary for preparedness and response under President Barack Obama who is now an executive director of CEPI, the global epidemic-fighting nonprofit.

“Most vaccine companies that responded to an epidemic — Ebola, Zika, covid — ended up losing a lot of money on it,” Lurie said.

Exceptions were the mRNA vaccines created for covid, although even Pfizer and Moderna have had to destroy hundreds of millions of doses of unwanted vaccine as public interest waned.

Pfizer and Moderna are testing seasonal influenza vaccines made with mRNA, and the government is soliciting bids for mRNA pandemic flu vaccines, said David Boucher, director of infectious disease preparedness at HHS’ Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response.

Bright, whose agency invested a billion dollars in a cell-based flu vaccine factory in Holly Springs, North Carolina, said there’s “no way in hell we can fight an H5N1 pandemic with an egg-based vaccine.” But for now, there’s little choice.

BARDA has stockpiled hundreds of thousands of doses of an H5N1-strain vaccine that stimulates the creation of antibodies that appear to neutralize the virus now circulating. It could produce millions more doses of the vaccine within weeks and up to 100 million doses in five months, Boucher told KFF Health News.

But the vaccines currently in the national stockpile are not a perfect match for the strain in question. Even with two shots containing six times as much vaccine substance as typical flu shots, the stockpiled vaccines were only partly effective against strains of the virus that circulated when those vaccines were made, Adalja said.

However, BARDA is currently supporting two clinical trials with a candidate vaccine virus that “is a good match for what we’ve found in cows,” Boucher said.

Flu vaccine makers are just starting to prepare this fall’s shots but, eventually, the federal government could request production be switched to a pandemic-targeted strain.

“We don’t have the capacity to do both,” Adalja said.

For now, ASPR has a stockpile of bulk pandemic vaccine and has identified manufacturing sites where 4.8 million doses could be bottled and finished without stopping production of seasonal flu vaccine, ASPR chief Dawn O’Connell said on May 22. U.S. officials began trying to diversify away from egg-based vaccines in 2005, when avian flu first gripped the world, and with added vigor after the 2009 fiasco. But “with the resources we have available, we get the best bang for our buck and best value to U.S. taxpayers when we leverage the seasonal infrastructure, and that’s still mostly egg-based,” Boucher said.

Flu vaccine companies “have a system that works well right now to accomplish their objectives in manufacturing the seasonal vaccine,” he said. And without a financial incentive, “we are going to be here with eggs for a while, I think.”

Arthur Allen: aallen@kff.org, @ArthurAllen202

The post The Chicken and Egg Problem of Fighting Another Flu Pandemic appeared first on Medika Life.

The drug industry, patient advocates, and congressional Republicans have all attacked federal officials’ decision to decline routine Medicare coverage for a controversial Alzheimer’s drug. They’ve gone as far as to accuse them of tacit racism, ageism, and discrimination against the disabled — and hinted at a lawsuit — over the decision to pay only for patients taking the drug in a clinical trial.

The drug, Aduhelm, with a listed price tag of $28,500 a year, has had few takers in the medical world. Brain doctors are leery of administering the intravenous drug because it appears dangerous and largely ineffective. Many of the nation’s most prestigious hospitals — such as the Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Massachusetts General in Boston — have declined to offer it to patients.

While groups representing the pharmaceutical industry and patients press to undo Medicare’s decision, industry critics applaud the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for throwing obstacles in the way of a drug they think the FDA should never have approved in the first place.

For the industry, the campaign has a broader existential target: to prevent CMS from using its payment decisions to keep FDA-approved drugs off the market. In recent years, FDA programs to speed approval of new drugs have led to a rash of entries with often minimal scientifically sound evidence to prove they work, critics say.

The FDA’s own expert panel recommended against approving Aduhelm for that reason. Last June, the agency approved it anyway.

CMS then announced Medicare would pay only when the drug was used in further clinical trials to assess its true benefit. That Jan. 11 announcement has drawn more than 9,000 comments to the agency’s website — a tsunami compared with most approval decisions. The remarks are roughly divided among pros and cons, and many appear to be organized by groups on the pro side of the debate (such as the Alzheimer’s Association) or those opposed (such as the nonprofit More Perfect Union). The agency could change or even reverse its decision, though experts believe the latter is unlikely.

“If the FDA were doing its job, CMS wouldn’t have had to step in. But good for the CMS, they are helping to protect the public from drugs whose harms outweigh benefits,” said Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, a Georgetown University professor of pharmacology who directs PharmedOut, a group that publicizes what it sees as poor industry practices.

Aduhelm is the first FDA approval for a class of laboratory-made antibodies designed to clear away so-called amyloid plaques, which gradually accumulate in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease.

In clinical trials, Aduhelm did well dissolving the plaques, but its impact on the functioning of patients in earlier stages of Alzheimer’s was so meager that an expert panel voted 10-0 (an 11th panelist was uncertain) in November 2020 to advise FDA to reject it. The science is unclear about whether the presence of such plaques — a so-called surrogate marker — correlates with the mental functioning of patients.

As such, the FDA gave “provisional approval” to Biogen, the maker of Aduhelm, allowing it nine years to provide evidence that the drug slows the progression of Alzheimer’s. In that period, Biogen would make far more money than if the application had been rejected. Even under the CMS decision, it would reap Medicare payments from whatever is used in clinical trials, which would need to include thousands of participants to assess the drug’s performance.

Drug companies and pharma investors have responded to CMS’ ruling with special alarm because they have spent decades improving their relationships with the FDA, only to have CMS seemingly pull the rug out by exerting its own power over an expensive drug.

“The drug companies are worried that this could be a precedent for other drugs. And it should be,” Fugh-Berman said. “This isn’t just about money; it’s about protecting the public.”

This “accelerated approval” employed for Aduhelm got its start in 1992 and is aimed at moving promising new classes of drugs to the public faster. Companies whose drugs go through the process — more than 250 drugs or vaccines have been approved so far — are supposed to quickly gather evidence that the products likely improve health once they’re on the market. But such follow-up studies often lag or are never performed. For example, the makers of the Duchenne muscular dystrophy drug eteplirsen, approved in 2016, didn’t start recruiting patients into a post-marketing trial until 2020 and don’t expect results until 2026.

Biogen originally said it would get confirmatory results for Aduhelm within seven years of approval. In response to the Medicare decision, it promised to trim that to four years. The company also hinted that it might sue the agency, calling its decision “arbitrary and capricious.”

In the meantime, patients eager to get access to the drug are furious about the coverage decision. Jim Taylor, a New Yorker whose wife, Geri, says she improved on Aduhelm during a clinical trial, said Medicare had made an “unconscionable decision” that puts Alzheimer’s patients “on a dark roller coaster.”

Many patients’ groups are organized or at least funded and fueled by drugmakers, providing sympathetic stories that buttress a manufacturer’s commercial interests. Advocacy groups also receive large donations from the makers of certain drugs. A 2020 report by UsAgainstAlzheimer’s shows at least $900,000 in donations from monoclonal antibody producers. The Alzheimer’s Association’s top corporate donors — Biogen, Lilly, Eisai, and Genentech — all have monoclonal antibody candidates and have provided the group $1.6 million in fiscal year 2021.

These donations are a tiny part of the group’s funding, its policy director, Robert Egge, told KHN, and any alignment of its position with industry is “coincidental, because of what we and our constituents believe is right.”

The Taylors appeared at an online news event with activists from UsAgainstAlzheimer’s and the National Minority Quality Forum, a group focused on health inequities, who argued that the decision discriminated against Black and Hispanic patients, who are more likely to suffer from Alzheimer’s and less likely to join clinical trials. In fact, CMS demanded that evidence for Aduhelm be collected more extensively from minority patients. Biogen’s two major trials of the drug included only 19 Black patients out of a total of 3,285.

Groups representing people with Down syndrome wrote more than 1,000 letters to CMS because its decision requires that confirmatory trials exclude people who have additional neurological conditions. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a top drug industry cash recipient and the leading Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee with significant sway over pharma issues, said at a hearing last week that it was “extremely concerning and unacceptable” that Down syndrome patients would be ineligible.

But neither Biogen nor any other drug company has recruited Down syndrome patients for a major trial of a monoclonal antibody treatment. AC Immune, a Swiss company, conducted a safety study last year on 16 people with Down syndrome.

It’s not surprising that groups representing those suffering from Alzheimer’s placed high hopes on the monoclonal antibody drugs, which have seemed like a ray in the darkness for the estimated 2 million Americans with early Alzheimer’s symptoms.

When asked why his group is so gung-ho about a product in which the medical profession shows such little confidence, Egge said the drug seems to have some benefits and that its risks — especially to patients who lack other means to slow a miserable, deadly disease — may be exaggerated. He acknowledged that 40% of patients in the biggest Aduhelm trial experienced brain swelling or bleeding, but Biogen’s research showed these resolved with no apparent harm in most cases.

That said, the sluggish purchases of the drug — which earned a modest $1 million in the last quarter of 2021 — signal the market is responding to its deficiencies.

In response to the lackluster response, Biogen halved its initial $56,000 price to $28,500. If CMS had granted full approval, that would have been followed by “marketing, marketing, marketing,” said Dr. Joseph Ross, a public health professor at Yale University. Hospitals that wanted to attract patient business for a lucrative infusion — patients receiving the drug also require brain scans and other tests and monitoring — could advertise their willingness to give Aduhelm.

CMS’ decision came under a policy called coverage with evidence development. Though the program began in 2005, Aduhelm is by far the most important product CMS has declined to reimburse without further study.

The agency’s decision “is a little inelegant” because it puts the brakes on an FDA approval, said former CMS chief medical officer Dr. Sean Tunis, now a consultant and senior fellow at Tufts Medical Center, but “it seems completely justifiable since the evidence of benefit is pretty weak and the evidence of harm is pretty strong.”

The post Inside the Tactical Tug of War Over the Controversial Alzheimer’s Drug appeared first on Medika Life.