logo
CDC official who oversaw COVID vaccine recommendations resigns

CDC official who oversaw COVID vaccine recommendations resigns

Yahooa day ago

An official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who oversaw the agency's recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines has resigned, following a week of mixed messaging from federal health officials over who would be eligible for the shots.
"My career in public health and vaccinology started with a deep-seated desire to help the most vulnerable members of our population, and that is not something I am able to continue doing in this role," Dr. Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos wrote in her resignation letter obtained by ABC News. In her letter, Panagiotakopoulos said she resigned last Friday.
Reuters first reported her resignation.
MORE: RFK Jr. cuts COVID vaccine recommendation for healthy kids, pregnant women -- and why it matters
Panagiotakopoulos co-led a part of the CDC's independent panel of vaccine advisers to review evidence for recommendations on COVID vaccines. In mid-April, the advisers had discussed the possibility of narrowing the recommendations for who should receive an annual COVID vaccine -- prioritizing those at higher risk such as adults over 65 or those with an underlying condition.
Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the removal of COVID vaccines from the immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women.
Later on Friday, the CDC updated the immunization schedule allowing all children to be eligible to receive COVID vaccines, now under a shared clinical decision-making model, which means parents can choose to get their children vaccinated with the advice of a doctor.
MORE: Why healthy children may need vaccination as RFK Jr. cuts COVID shot recommendation for some kids
The mixed messages prompted concern from some medical organizations.
"American families deserve better," the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) said, in part, in a statement. "They deserve clear messages from all involved in their health, that are based on facts so they can continue to benefit from the success story of vaccines."
The statement went on to say: "While the shared clinical decision-making model in the updated immunization schedule preserves families' choice, this model has consistently proven challenging to implement because it lacks clear guidance for the conversations between a doctor and a family. Doctors and families need straightforward, evidence-based guidance, not vague, impractical frameworks," the AAP statement added.
Pregnant women were left without a recommendation on the CDC's immunization schedule as to whether or not to receive the COVID vaccine.
Despite the change in recommendations from HHS, "the science has not changed," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said in part of a statement. "It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families. The COVID-19 vaccine is safe during pregnancy, and vaccination can protect our patients and their infants after birth," the ACOG statement added.
MORE: Why are more than 300 people in the US still dying from COVID every week?
Federal officials had made the changes to the vaccine recommendations without the input of the CDC's independent panel of vaccine advisers and before their meeting set for late June, according to the public calendar. In the meeting, advisers were set to discuss their recommendation for who should be eligible for COVID vaccines including a vote on whether to narrow the recommendations.
"Governmental guidance about vaccines is an important foundation that enables insurance coverage of—and therefore access to—vaccines, so changing government recommendations about which specific and limited populations should receive COVID-19 vaccines has far-reaching consequences," the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) said in part of a statement.
Some medical and public health organizations had expressed concerns at the officials' change to vaccine recommendations without the input of independent advisers.
"Federal vaccine recommendations have traditionally been developed by medical and public health experts who gather openly to review evidence and receive public input before recommending what vaccines are needed and who should be eligible for them. Conclusions are based on the best available science, and recommendations are communicated with precision and clarity, providing guidance to clinicians to make the best decisions with their patients," part of the IDSA statement read.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Arvinas Announces Submission of New Drug Application to U.S. FDA for Vepdegestrant for Patients with ESR1-Mutated ER+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer
Arvinas Announces Submission of New Drug Application to U.S. FDA for Vepdegestrant for Patients with ESR1-Mutated ER+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer

Associated Press

time8 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Arvinas Announces Submission of New Drug Application to U.S. FDA for Vepdegestrant for Patients with ESR1-Mutated ER+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer

– This submission is supported by the pivotal Phase 3 VERITAC-2 clinical trial, results of which were recently presented at the 2025 American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting and published in The New England Journal of Medicine – – VERITAC-2 data support vepdegestrant as a potential treatment option in patients with ESR1m ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer – NEW HAVEN, Conn., June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Arvinas, Inc. (Nasdaq: ARVN), today announced the submission of a New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with its partner Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE), for vepdegestrant for the treatment of patients with ER-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (ER+/HER2-) ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with endocrine-based therapy. This submission is based on results from VERITAC-2 (NCT05654623), a global, randomized Phase 3 trial evaluating vepdegestrant versus fulvestrant. 'This milestone comes after an exciting presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology's annual meeting,' said John Houston, Ph.D., Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer and President at Arvinas. 'We look forward to the NDA review and to the first ever FDA-approved PROTAC ER degrader potentially being available to patients who could benefit from a much needed, new treatment option.' Vepdegestrant is being jointly developed by Arvinas and Pfizer for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer and was granted fast track designation as a monotherapy by the FDA. Results from the VERITAC-2 study were recently presented in a late-breaking oral presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 Annual Meeting and were selected for the ASCO press briefing and for Best of ASCO. Detailed results were also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. About the VERITAC-2 Clinical Trial The Phase 3 VERITAC-2 clinical trial ( NCT05654623 ) is a global, randomized trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of vepdegestrant (ARV-471) as a monotherapy compared to fulvestrant in patients with ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The trial enrolled 624 patients at sites in 25 countries who had previously received treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either vepdegestrant once daily, orally on a 28-day continuous dosing schedule, or fulvestrant, administered intramuscularly on Days 1 and 15 of Cycle 1 and then on Day 1 of each 28-day cycle starting from Day 1 of Cycle 2. In the trial, 43% of patients (n=270) had ESR1 mutations detected. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the ESR1-mutation and intent-to-treat populations as determined by blinded independent central review. Overall survival is the key secondary endpoint. About Vepdegestrant Vepdegestrant is an investigational, orally bioavailable PROTAC (PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera) protein degrader designed to specifically target and degrade the estrogen receptor (ER). Vepdegestrant is being developed as a potential monotherapy for ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer with estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations in the second line-plus setting. In July 2021, Arvinas announced a global collaboration with Pfizer for the co-development and co-commercialization of vepdegestrant; Arvinas and Pfizer will share worldwide development costs, commercialization expenses, and profits. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted vepdegestrant Fast Track designation as a monotherapy in the treatment of adults with ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with endocrine-based therapy. About Arvinas Arvinas (Nasdaq: ARVN) is a clinical-stage biotechnology company dedicated to improving the lives of patients suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases. Through its PROTAC (PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera) protein degrader platform, the Company is pioneering the development of protein degradation therapies designed to harness the body's natural protein disposal system to selectively and efficiently degrade and remove disease-causing proteins. Arvinas is currently progressing multiple investigational drugs through clinical development programs, including vepdegestrant, targeting the estrogen receptor for patients with locally advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer; ARV-393, targeting BCL6 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin Lymphoma; and ARV-102, targeting LRRK2 for neurodegenerative disorders. Arvinas is headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut. For more information about Arvinas, visit and connect on LinkedIn and X. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that involve substantial risks and uncertainties, including statements regarding: the NDA review and to the first ever FDA-approved PROTAC ER degrader potentially being available to patients who could benefit from a much needed, new treatment option; and vepdegestrant's development as a potential monotherapy for ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer with ESR1 mutations in the second line-plus setting. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, contained in this press release, including statements regarding Arvinas' strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, are forward-looking statements. The words 'anticipate,' 'believe,' 'estimate,' 'expect,' 'intend,' 'may,' 'plan,' 'target,' 'goal,' 'potential,' 'will,' 'would,' 'could,' 'should,' 'look forward,' 'continue,' and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Arvinas may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in these forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements Arvinas makes as a result of various risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: whether Arvinas and Pfizer will successfully perform their respective obligations under the collaboration between Arvinas and Pfizer; whether Arvinas and Pfizer will be able to successfully conduct and complete clinical development for vepdegestrant as a monotherapy; whether the VERITAC-2 clinical trial will meet the secondary endpoint for overall survival; risks related to our expectations regarding the potential clinical benefit of vepdegestrant to patients; uncertainties relating to regulatory applications and related filing and approval timelines, including the New Drug Application seeking FDA approval of vepdegestrant and the risk that any regulatory approvals, if granted, may be subject to significant limitations on use or subject to withdrawal or other adverse actions by the applicable regulatory authority; whether FDA or other regulatory authorities will require additional information or further studies, or may fail or refuse to approve or may delay approval of vepdegestrant; whether Arvinas and Pfizer, as appropriate, will be able to obtain marketing approval for and commercialize vepdegestrant and other product candidates on current timelines or at all; Arvinas' ability to protect its intellectual property portfolio; Arvinas' reliance on third parties; whether Arvinas will be able to raise capital when needed; whether Arvinas' cash and cash equivalent resources will be sufficient to fund its foreseeable and unforeseeable operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements; and other important factors discussed in the 'Risk Factors' section of Arvinas' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and subsequent other reports on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release reflect Arvinas' current views with respect to future events, and Arvinas assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable law. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing Arvinas' views as of any date subsequent to the date of this release. Contacts Investors: Jeff Boyle +1 (347) 247-5089 [email protected] Media: Kirsten Owens +1 (203) 584-0307 [email protected]

Radiology Workforce Shortages Impacting Cancer Care
Radiology Workforce Shortages Impacting Cancer Care

Medscape

time10 minutes ago

  • Medscape

Radiology Workforce Shortages Impacting Cancer Care

A chronic shortage of radiologists and oncologists is putting patients in the UK at risk, a new report found. The annual workforce census by the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) warned that the safe delivery of NHS cancer care is becoming 'increasingly impossible' due to an escalating shortfall of doctors coupled with rising demand for care. In 2024, the UK had a 29% shortfall of clinical radiologists, with regional gaps ranging from 25% in Scotland to 32% in Wales. The workforce grew by 4.7% that year — less than in 2023, when it increased by 6.3%. The college forecasts the radiologist shortfall will reach 39% by 2029. Oncology Under Strain Clinical oncologists are also in short supply, with a current 15% gap expected to rise to 19% by 2029. This is despite a 5.4% increase in the workforce in 2024—the strongest growth since 2018. The RCR reported that 23% of cancer centres were experiencing recruitment freezes, making it harder to meet growing demand. Demand Continues to Outpace Capacity The shortages threaten the government's plans to cut waiting times and improve cancer outcomes. In 2024, demand for computerised tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) grew by 8%, but workforce growth did not keep pace. Every radiology leader surveyed last year reported delays to diagnostic scans caused by staff shortages. Nine in 10 radiology team leaders reported that patients were waiting longer to start treatment, while seven in 10 expressed concern that staff shortages were putting patient safety at risk – down slightly from 85% in 2023. Chronic problems such as workforce shortages, reporting backlogs, and staff vacancies remain too high, according to Dr Robin Proctor, the RCR's m edical director responsible for professional practice and clinical radiology. Consultants Leaving Earlier Staff retention is worsening, with experienced consultants leaving the NHS at younger ages. In 2024, the median age of consultant clinical radiologists leaving the NHS workforce was 50 – down from 56 in 2020. Four in five (79%) of leavers were under 60, and two in five (42%) were under 45. Clinical oncologists followed a similar trend. Their median exit age dropped to 54, from 57 in 2023 and 59 in 2022. Nearly 76% of leavers were under 60, and 26% were under 45. One consultant clinical oncologist told the college that delays in scans and treatment were resulting in missed or late cancer diagnoses. Some patients' conditions were deteriorating or reaching a stage where treatment was no longer possible. Changing Work Practices 'Working conditions and ways of working need to change if we are to address this problem and meet the growing demand for our expertise,' Proctor said. The RCR has called on the government to invest in training and recruitment. In 2024, the NHS spent an estimated £325 million on temporary radiology staff. The cost of outsourcing had doubled since before the COVID-19 pandemic and had surged by almost a quarter in the past year. The RCR estimated that increasing radiology trainee numbers by 50% could eliminate three-quarters of the current shortfall and save the NHS £460 million over the next 10 years. 'Patients are being failed by a chronic lack of radiologists and oncologists,' said RCR president Dr Katharine Halliday. 'The longer we delay action, the worse it gets,' she added.

Our New Podcast
Our New Podcast

New York Times

time33 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Our New Podcast

Health care for transgender youths is deeply personal and important to thousands of American families. It's also one of the most divisive cultural and political issues of our time. Twenty-seven states have banned surgery, hormone treatments or puberty blockers for minors. The Supreme Court will decide soon whether those bans are constitutional. The Times just published a special six-part podcast on the history of these treatments and the contentious debate. It reflects two years of work by Azeen Ghorayshi, who has reported on the intersection of gender and science for a decade, and Austin Mitchell, a senior audio producer. Jodi, who oversees Times newsletters, spoke to Azeen about the project's ambition, how she got people to open up, the biggest surprises in the reporting and how her own work has been weaponized. How was this project different from your prior work on this beat? What were the big unanswered questions you set out to explore? With this audio series, the interviews are more like long, in-depth conversations. People can connect more easily when they hear others in this way, and it can help challenge assumptions. The big question we were trying to answer was, How did we get here? The science and the politics have gotten so entangled, but something this reporting made clear is that politics has been baked in all along. The show is titled 'The Protocol,' after the Dutch Protocol, which grew out of the pioneering treatments in the Netherlands in the 1990s and 2000s. Why start there? Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store