FDA vaccine official restricted COVID vaccine approvals against the advice of agency staff
The new memos from the Food and Drug Administration show how the agency's vaccine chief, Dr. Vinay Prasad, personally intervened to place restrictions on COVID shots from vaccine makers Novavax and Moderna.
Both vaccines were approved by the FDA in May after months of analysis by rank-and-file FDA reviewers.
But internal correspondence show Prasad disagreed with staffers who planned to approve the shots for everyone 12 and older, similar to previous COVID vaccines. The scientists had concluded the benefit from the vaccines and the risk of COVID-19 outweighed the risk of possible side effects, which are rare.
Instead Prasad decided the shots should be limited to those who face special risks from the virus— seniors or children and adults with underlying medical issues.
Prasad explained that the COVID vaccine benefits must be reconsidered in light of falling rates of death and hospitalization and the possibility for vaccine side effects. It's the latest in a series of vaccine restrictions imposed by officials working under Kennedy, who has long questioned the benefits of vaccines.
'Even rare vaccination related harms both known and unknown now have higher chance of outweighing potential benefits' Prasad wrote in a five-page memo explaining his decision.
COVID-19 remains a public health threat, resulting in 32,000 to 51,000 U.S. deaths and more than 250,000 hospitalizations since last fall, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most at risk for hospitalization are seniors and children under 2 — especially infants under 6 months.
Top FDA leaders are typically not involved in the review of individual products. Officials like Prasad can overrule staffers, but such cases are rare and often controversial.
News of the FDA documents was first reported by the New York Times.
Prasad was hired to lead the FDA's vaccine center in May, after the previous director, Dr. Peter Marks, was forced to resign over disagreements with Kennedy. An academic researcher specializing in cancer therapies, Prasad came to prominence during the pandemic for criticizing public health measures, including the FDA's approval of COVID boosters for healthy adults and children.
Since arriving at the agency he has worked with FDA Commissioner Mark Makary on new guidelines that will limit approvals of future COVID boosters to higher-risk Americans, mainly seniors and those with medical conditions like asthma and obesity.
Those limits match the terms FDA recently approved for Novavax's shot, Nuvaxovid and Moderna's mNexspike. Novavax's vaccine is the only protein-based coronavirus vaccine available in the U.S. Moderna's vaccine is an updated, lower-dose version of its existing mRNA-based vaccine.
The review team for the Novavax vaccine pointed to data from a study in 30,000 adults, concluding that 'the risk-benefit assessment for this vaccine technology remains favorable.'
FDA staff reached a similar conclusion for the Moderna vaccine, deeming it similar in safety and effectiveness to the company's original shot.
Last week, the FDA finalized new warning labeling about the risk of myocarditis, a rare form of heart inflammation, on shots from Moderna and Pfizer, the other maker of an mRNA-based shot for COVID.
In his 'override memo,' reversing FDA staff's decision on the Moderna shot, Prasad pointed to the ongoing risk of myocarditis and questions about its frequency. The agency ordered Moderna to conduct further studies of the risk as a condition for the approving its updated shot.
A spokesman for the administration said Prasad 'has raised serious concerns' about the issue.
'We will not ignore these risks and will ensure that the gold standard of science is used for any decisions,' said Andrew Nixon, in an emailed statement.
Outside researchers have noted that cases of the heart condition tend to resolve quickly and are less severe than those associated with COVID infection itself, which can also cause myocarditis.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Alcohol-related liver problems escalate in Wisconsin, especially for women, young people
Deaths from liver diseases that result from consuming too much alcohol are escalating dramatically in Wisconsin, and even more alarming, such diseases are showing up more in younger people. The numbers mirror national trends described in a June 11 study in JAMA Open Network, which found a "significant acceleration" in alcohol-associated liver disease deaths during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Nationwide, such deaths increased nearly 9% annually between 2018 and 2022. In Wisconsin, deaths from cirrhosis of the liver — one of several liver diseases tied to alcohol consumption — rose 35% between 2019 and 2023, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It's well-documented that Americans began drinking more during the pandemic, and coupled with Wisconsin's deeply entrenched drinking culture, experts worry about the toll they're seeing on people's physical health. Alcohol-related deaths generally, which include myriad other causes besides liver problems, increased three-fold in Wisconsin between 1999 and 2020, a January analysis from the Journal Sentinel found. But experts say multidisciplinary treatment, reduced stigma around alcohol use disorder, and a renewed emphasis on education and prevention could improve the situation. "I think the narrative often in Wisconsin is just, 'Oh, we're just big drinkers,' and that's all there is," said Maureen Busalacchi, director of the Wisconsin Alcohol Policy Project at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "The message is not that you can't drink at all. It's more, really think about it, and just drink less." More: Wisconsin's alcohol-related deaths more than tripled since 1999: See the data U.S. dietary guidelines for alcohol urge people of drinking age to limit consumption to one drink or fewer per day for women and two drinks or fewer per day for men. When people consume significant amounts of alcohol over a prolonged period of time, fat begins to turn up in the liver, and then scar tissue, which can lead to cirrhosis, said Dr. Rita German, a transplant hepatologist at UW Health in Madison. Many times, German said, liver disease symptoms such as jaundice, fever and confusion don't show themselves until the disease has progressed, making it harder to treat. Nearly 3,000 Wisconsinites died from alcohol-related liver diseases from 2019 to 2023, CDC data show. The large majority — 2,072 — were from cirrhosis. Deaths from most types of liver diseases due to alcohol consumption increased in those years, including alcoholic fatty liver and alcoholic hepatic failure in addition to cirrhosis. Deaths from alcoholic hepatitis fell slightly. Busalacchi called the numbers a huge concern. Most of these deaths are preventable, she contended. Doctors used to think of alcohol-related liver diseases as affecting people past middle age, German said. But increasingly, that age is dropping. At UW Health's multidisciplinary clinic for patients with such diseases, she said, the average age is now 45, and she's treated some as young as 25. More: Alcohol-related deaths in Wisconsin tripled since 1999. Will a new warning from the surgeon general slow the trend? That may seem to conflict with recent research showing young people, particularly Gen Z, drinking less. But while some are cutting back, those who do drink are drinking more heavily, Busalacchi said. And while alcohol use among Wisconsin high schoolers has generally decreased in recent years, more than one in 10 reported binge drinking in the last 30 days on the state's most recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey, done in 2023. The JAMA study noted, in particular, increases in alcohol-related liver disease deaths among adults ages 25-44. Deaths among women also increased disproportionately. Women absorb more alcohol into their bloodstream because they're generally smaller than men and because women's bodies have less gastric alcohol dehydrogenase, the enzyme that breaks down alcohol in the stomach, German said. Thus, they're at greater risk for liver damage. The Medical College of Wisconsin's liver transplant team reports younger and younger women needing transplants due to alcohol consumption, Busalacchi said. More: US to drop guidance to limit alcohol to one or two drinks per day, sources say To catch alcohol-related liver diseases earlier, German said, it's critical that patients be forthcoming about their alcohol use at the doctor's office. And for that to happen, she said, doctors must view alcohol use disorder for what it is — a disease, not a personal failing. People who are concerned about their alcohol consumption may also request an ultrasound of their liver, German said. From there, they can begin treatment if need be. She also sees the benefits in treatment that is comprehensive. At UW Health's clinic, patients not only see doctors like German who attend to the liver, but addiction specialists and counselors to treat underlying mental health conditions that can drive alcohol use. The clinic has treated between 250 and 300 people since it began in 2021. If it's caught in time, fat and scarring in the liver can be reversed by abstaining from alcohol, German said. Busalacchi's work continues to focus on changing societal perceptions on drinking culture. She sees encouraging signs around the state from communities that are offering more education about the consequences of excessive drinking, especially for youth. Some are taking a harder stance on age compliance checks for alcohol sales. Madeline Heim covers health and the environment for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Contact her at 920-996-7266 or mheim@ This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin deaths from alcohol-related liver diseases sharply rise
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
MRNA Stock Jumps on CDC's Revised RSV Vaccine Recommendations
Shares of Moderna MRNA rose nearly 6% yesterday after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ('CDC') adopted new recommendations for the use of RSV vaccines in the upcoming respiratory virus season. The revised recommendations lower the recommended age for RSV vaccination. Now, adults aged 50-59 who are at higher risk of severe illness from the disease are advised to receive a single dose of the vaccine. The previous CDC guidance recommended RSV vaccines for people aged 75 and older, as well as those aged between 60-74 who were at high risk of the disease. Per the CDC's website, this recommendation was officially adopted last week by the current HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Although the CDC director typically accepts or rejects such recommendations, the position is currently vacant, so Kennedy fulfilled that role. President Trump has backed Susan Monarez as his nominee for the post, but her appointment is still pending confirmation by the U.S. Senate. The broader recommendations come as a surprise because the members of the CDC's advisory committee — who initially made the recommendation earlier this year — were all removed by RFK Jr. last month. Year to date, the stock has lost 27% compared with the industry's 2% decline. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research The expanded CDC recommendations widen Moderna's addressable market for its RSV vaccine, mResvia. By lowering the recommended age group, the guidance opens up a new segment of eligible patients who were previously excluded. Moderna is one of a handful of companies marketing an RSV vaccine. Though mResvia was initially approved last year for use in people aged 60 and older, the FDA expanded its label last month to include high-risk individuals aged between 18-59. Despite commercially launching the vaccine last year, mResvia sales were modest as it was approved and recommended later in the contracting season. By that point, many people had already completed their vaccinations with either GSK's GSK Arexvy or Pfizer's PFE Abrysvo. RSV vaccines gained traction in 2023 with the initial approvals of Arexvy and Abrysvo — the first FDA-approved RSV vaccines. At the time, the CDC issued blanket approvals for use among individuals aged 60 and older. However, the CDC later narrowed that guidance, which trimmed the target market last year. That, combined with the earlier availability of GSK and Pfizer's offerings, gave both companies a dominant position over Moderna. Both GSK and Pfizer vaccines are already approved for use in individuals aged 60 and older. While GSK's Arexvy is approved for use in high-risk individuals aged 50-59, PFE's Abrysvo is approved for use in high-risk people aged 18-59. The Pfizer vaccine is also approved for use in infants through maternal immunization. Moderna, Inc. price | Moderna, Inc. Quote Moderna currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report GSK PLC Sponsored ADR (GSK) : Free Stock Analysis Report Pfizer Inc. (PFE) : Free Stock Analysis Report Moderna, Inc. (MRNA) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Medicaid cuts would leave the working class more vulnerable
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million Americans across the United States would lose their coverage through Medicaid -– the public program that provides health insurance to low-income families and individuals -– under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act making its way through Congress. Photo by Jonathan Borb/ Pexels The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million Americans across the United States would lose their coverage through Medicaid -- the public program that provides health insurance to low-income families and individuals -- under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act making its way through Congress. That includes 248,000 to 414,000 of my fellow residents of Michigan, based on the House Reconciliation Bill in early June 2025. There are similarly deep projected cuts within the Senate version of the legislation. Many of these people are working Americans who would lose Medicaid because of the onerous paperwork involved with the proposed work requirements. They wouldn't be able to get coverage in the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces after losing Medicaid. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs are likely to be too high for those making less than 100% to 138% of the federal poverty level who do not qualify for health insurance marketplace subsidies. Funding for this program is also under threat. And despite being employed, they also wouldn't be able to get health insurance through their employers because it is either too expensive or not offered to them. Researchers estimate that coverage losses would lead to thousands of medically preventable deaths across the country because people would be unable to access health care without insurance. I am a physician, health economist and policy researcher who has cared for patients on Medicaid and written about health care in the United States for more than eight years. I think it's important to understand the role of Medicaid within the broader insurance landscape. Medicaid has become a crucial source of health coverage for low-wage workers. Michigan removed work requirements from Medicaid A few years ago, Michigan was slated to institute Medicaid work requirements, but the courts blocked the implementation of that policy in 2020. It would have cost upward of $70 million due to software upgrades, staff training, and outreach to Michigan residents enrolled in the Medicaid program, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Had it gone into effect, 100,000 state residents were expected to lose coverage within the first year. The state took the formal step of eliminating work requirements from its statutes earlier this year in recognition of implementation costs being too high and mounting evidence against the policy's effectiveness. When Arkansas instituted Medicaid work requirements in 2018, there was no increase in employment, but within months, thousands of people enrolled in the program lost their coverage. The reason? Many people were subjected to paperwork and red tape, but there weren't actually that many people who would fail to meet the criteria of the work requirements. It is a recipe for widespread coverage losses without meeting any of the policy's purported goals. Work requirements, far from incentivizing work, paradoxically remove working people from Medicaid with nowhere else to go for insurance. Shortcomings of employer-sponsored insurance Nearly half of Americans get their health insurance through their employers. In contrast to a universal system that covers everyone from cradle to grave, an employer-first system leaves huge swaths of the population uninsured. This includes tens of millions of working Americans who are unable to get health insurance through their employers, especially low-income workers who are less likely to even get the choice of coverage from their employers. More than 80% of managers and professionals have employer-sponsored health coverage, but only 50% to 70% of blue-collar workers in service jobs, farming, construction, manufacturing and transportation can say the same. There are some legal requirements mandating employers to provide health insurance to their employees, but the reality of low-wage work means many do not fall under these legal protections. For example, employers are allowed to incorporate a waiting period of up to 90 days before health coverage begins. The legal requirement also applies only to full-time workers. Health coverage can thus remain out of reach for seasonal and temporary workers, part-time employees and gig workers. Even if an employer offers health insurance to their low-wage employees, those workers may forego it because the premiums and deductibles are too high to make it worth earning less take-home pay. To make matters worse, layoffs are more common for low-wage workers, leaving them with limited options for health insurance during job transitions. And many employers have increasingly shed low-wage staff, such as drivers and cleaning staff, from their employment rolls and contracted that work out. Known as the fissuring of the workplace, it allows employers of predominately high-income employees to continue offering generous benefits while leaving no such commitment to low-wage workers employed as contractors. Medicaid fills in gaps Low-income workers without access to employer-sponsored insurance had virtually no options for health insurance in the years before key parts of the Affordable Care Act went into effect in 2014. Research my co-authors and I conducted showed that blue-collar workers have since gained health insurance coverage, cutting the uninsured rate by a third thanks to the expansion of Medicaid eligibility and subsidies in the health insurance marketplaces. This means low-income workers can more consistently see doctors, get preventive care and fill prescriptions. Further evidence from Michigan's experience has shown that Medicaid can help the people it covers do a better job at work by addressing health impairments. It can also improve their financial well-being, including fewer problems with debt, fewer bankruptcies, higher credit scores and fewer evictions. Premiums and cost sharing in Medicaid are minimal compared with employer-sponsored insurance, making it a more realistic and accessible option for low-income workers. And because Medicaid is not tied directly to employment, it can promote job mobility, allowing workers to maintain coverage within or between jobs without having to go through the bureaucratic complexity of certifying work. Of course, Medicaid has its own shortcomings. Payment rates to providers are low relative to other insurers, access to doctors can be limited, and the program varies significantly by state. But these weaknesses stem largely from underfunding and political hostility - not from any intrinsic flaw in the model. If anything, Medicaid's success in covering low-income workers and containing per-enrollee costs points to its potential as a broader foundation for health coverage. The current employer-based system, which is propped up by an enormous and regressive tax break for employer-sponsored insurance premiums, favors high-income earners and contributes to wage stagnation. In my view, which is shared by other health economists, a more public, universal model could better cover Americans regardless of how someone earns a living. Over the past six decades, Medicaid has quietly stepped into the breach left by employer-sponsored insurance. Medicaid started as a welfare program for the needy in the 1960s, but it has evolved and adapted to fill the needs of a country whose health care system leaves far too many uninsured. Sumit Agarwal is an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely the views of the author.
