FDA approves Moderna's new lower-dose Covid-19 vaccine
The U.S. approved a new Covid-19 vaccine made by Moderna late Friday but with limits on who can use it — not a replacement for the company's existing shot, but a second option.
The new vaccine, mNexspike, is a step toward next-generation coronavirus vaccines. It's made in a way that allows for a lower dose — a fifth of the dose of its current Covid-19 vaccine, Spikevax — by refining its immune target.
The approval "adds an important new tool to help protect people at high risk of severe disease from Covid-19," Stephane Bancel, Moderna's CEO, said in a statement Saturday.
The Food and Drug Administration approved the new vaccine for use in all adults 65 and older, and for people age 12 to 64 who have a least one health condition that puts them at increased risk from the coronavirus.
That's the same limit that the FDA set in licensing another Covid-19 vaccine option from competitor Novavax.
Those restrictions are a departure from how the U.S. has handled Covid-19 vaccines until now, reflecting skepticism about vaccines from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other Trump officials.
Moderna's existing vaccine doesn't face those limits and has long been used for anyone ages 6 months and older. The company said it expected to offer both options this fall.
The FDA's approval was based on a study of 11,400 people age 12 and older that compared the new low-dose vaccine with Moderna's existing vaccine. It found the new vaccine was safe and was at least as effective — and more by some measures — than the original shot, the company said.
The news came just days after the Trump administration canceled funding for Moderna to develop a vaccine against potential pandemic flu viruses, including the H5N1 bird flu, despite promising early study results.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Loses It at Rand Paul as GOP Budget Bill Seems Doomed in Senate
Donald Trump decided to start his Tuesday morning by attacking Republican Senator Rand Paul. 'Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming,' Trump angrily posted on Truth Social, referring to the budget bill. 'He loves voting 'NO' on everything, he thinks it's good politics, but it's not. The BBB is a big WINNER!!!'Rand votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas,' he posted again five minutes later. 'His ideas are actually crazy (losers!). The people of Kentucky can't stand him. This is a BIG GROWTH BILL!' The attack comes as Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which is predicted to make 13.7 million Americans lose health care over the next decade, faces an uphill battle in the Senate. Paul has said he'll support the bill only if it removes language raising the debt ceiling. The House version of the bill would raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion, while the Senate version would raise it by $5 trillion—which the Kentucky senator finds outrageous. 'If they were to separate out and take the debt ceiling off, that I very much could consider the rest of the bill,' Paul told reporters on Monday. Paul also said he 'had a lengthy discussion' with Trump this week in which he expressed his thoughts on the bill. But if Trump's Truth Social rants Tuesday morning are any indication, that call didn't go exactly as the president planned.
Business Wire
40 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Encourages UroGen Pharma Ltd. (URGN) Investors To Inquire About Securities Fraud Class Action
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased UroGen Pharma Ltd. ('UroGen' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ: URGN) securities between , inclusive (the 'Class Period'). UroGen investors have until July 28, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Encourages UroGen Pharma Ltd. (URGN) Investors To Inquire About Securities Fraud Class Action Share IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR UROGEN PHARMA LTD. INVESTMENTS, CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. You can also contact the Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss your legal rights by email at info@ by telephone at (310) 914-5007, or visit our website at What Happened? On May 16, 2025, before the market opened, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') published a briefing document in advance of its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting regarding UroGen's new drug application ('NDA') for UGN-102, which stated the agency doubted whether the submitted data was sufficient to conclude that UGN-102 was effective. In the briefing document, the FDA stated: '[g]iven that [the ENVISION trial] lacked a concurrent control arm, the primary endpoints of complete response (CR) and duration of response (DOR) are difficult to interpret.' The FDA also said it had 'recommended a randomized trial design to the Applicant several times during their product's development due to concerns with interpreting efficacy results' but UroGen 'chose not to conduct a randomized trial with a design and endpoints that the FDA considered appropriate.' On this news, UroGen's stock price fell $2.54, or 25.8%, to close at $7.31 per share on May 16, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on May 21, 2025, before the market opened, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted against approving the UGN-102 NDA. The committee found that the overall benefit-risk of the investigational therapy UGN-102 (intravesical mitomycin) is not favorable in patients with recurrent low-grade, intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. On this news, UroGen's stock price fell $3.37, or 44.7%, to close at $4.17 per share on May 21, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the ENVISION clinical study was not designed to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness of UGN-102 because it lacked a concurrent control arm; (2) as a result, the Company would have difficulty demonstrating that the duration of response endpoint was attributable to UGN-102; (3) UroGen failed to heed the FDA's warnings about the study design used to support a drug application for UGN-102; (4) as a result of the foregoing, there was a substantial risk that the NDA for UGN-102 would not be approved; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased UroGen securities, wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please click HERE or contact us at: This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has ordered a review of baby formula. Here's what you should know.
As federal health officials vow to overhaul the U.S. food supply, they're taking a new look at infant formula. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has directed the Food and Drug Administration to review the nutrients and other ingredients in infant formula, which fills the bottles of millions of American babies. The effort, dubbed 'Operation Stork Speed,' is the first deep look at the ingredients since 1998. 'The FDA will use all resources and authorities at its disposal to make sure infant formula products are safe and wholesome for the families and children who rely on them,' Kennedy said. About three-quarters of U.S. infants consume formula during the first six months of life, with about 40% receiving it as their only source of nutrition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Formula has been widely used in the U.S. for roughly six decades, feeding generations of infants who have flourished, said Dr. Steven Abrams, a University of Texas infant nutrition expert. The broader scientific community has been calling for a reevaluation of infant formula for years and is 'fully supportive of this idea of a comprehensive look,' he said. Current formula products in the U.S. continue to be safe and nourishing, he said. 'But there's been a lot of science and we want the FDA rules to align with the most recent science from around the world,' he said. Here's what you need to know about Operation Stork Speed: Infant formula is a manufactured product, usually made from cow's milk or soy, that is intended to mimic human breast milk for kids up age 12 months. It may be the sole source of nutrition or supplement breastfeeding. FDA regulations require that infant formulas contain 30 specific nutrients, with minimum levels for all and maximum levels for 10 of them. The ingredients vary, but all formulas must have a balance of calories from protein, carbohydrates and fat that mirrors what's found in human milk. Federal guidelines recommend that babies be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life and that parents continue breastfeeding for the first year or more while adding new foods to the child's diet. Parents use formula when a mother cannot or chooses not to breastfeed for a wide range of reasons, including medical conditions, work conflicts, to allow other family members to help with feedings and other situations. Kennedy announced the review of infant formula in March as part of his 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda for the U.S. food supply. The FDA's review will include increased testing for heavy metals and other contaminants as well as a review of nutrients, the agencies said. U.S. health officials will hold a two-hour roundtable discussion of infant formula on Wednesday. The FDA is asking for new scientific data and information about whether required ingredients in infant formula should be added, removed or changed. The deadline for comments is Sept. 11. Scientists say a review is long overdue regarding the most recent data on the composition of human milk and how babies digest and absorb nutrients in breastmilk and formula. In addition, they want the FDA to consider how U.S. formulas compare with those made elsewhere, said Bridget Young, who studies infant nutrition at the University of Rochester. 'How do our regulations differ?' she said. 'Maybe it's time for them to relook at their regulations and consider potential international harmonization.' More international alignment might have eased the U.S. infant formula crisis in 2022, when contamination shut down an Abbott factory, leading to monthslong shortages for American parents, Young said. In recent years, some parents have sought out infant formula made in Europe with the belief that products made overseas are healthier options, experts said. Formula regulations in the U.S. and Europe, including requirements for nutrients and testing, differ somewhat, but are generally similar, Abrams said. 'The differences between the U.S. and Europe should not be considered as 'higher' or 'better' or 'greater' in one vs. the other,' he said. Still, iron, for instance, is included at higher levels in U.S. formulas than in those in Europe — and Abrams suggested that U.S. officials may consider lowering iron targets. Other components have been added to formula in recent years. They include docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, an essential omega-3 fatty acid, and human milk oligosaccharides, complex sugars that are found breast milk but not in cow's milk. Although they may be beneficial, they are not required. 'These have been added to some formulas, but not to other formulas, so we want to take a look,' Abrams explained. Many parents have raised concerns over formula ingredients such as added sugars and seed oils, which are also being targeted by Kennedy as hazards in the wider food supply. Recent research suggests that added sugars such as glucose and corn syrup solids in infant formula may be linked to weight gain in children. Young said that most experts agree that lactose, the primary type of sugar found in breast milk, is preferred. Infant formulas in the U.S. do contain seed oils, Young said. But that's because there are a finite number of vegetable oils that provide the essential saturated and unsaturated fats that babies require. 'They need to provide the variety of fatty acids that you see in breast milk,' she said. Done properly, the FDA's infant formula review would take 'at least a year,' Abrams said. And it will require broad input from multiple government agencies, formula manufacturers and consumers. 'No shortcuts are possible and no one review, white paper or even committee report will suffice to do it right,' he said.
