FDA may revoke Pfizer COVID-19 shot for young, healthy children.
The Food and Drug Administration may revoke authorization for Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children under age 5, the pharmaceutical company confirmed, which would limit parents' vaccine options ahead of the winter respiratory virus season.
The possibility comes several months after President Donald Trump's Department of Health and Human Services began placing limits on COVID-19 vaccines. For the last four years, updated COVID-19 vaccines have been made available in the fall for most Americans before the cold sets in.
The federal agency told Pfizer that it might not renew the emergency use authorization, or EUA, for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty for children ages 6 months through 4 years, according to a statement sent to USA TODAY.
'We are currently in discussions with the agency on potential paths forward and have requested that the EUA for this age group remain in place for the 2025-2026 season,' a company spokesperson said. 'It is important to note that these deliberations are not related to the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, which continues to demonstrate a favorable profile.'
HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon declined to predict what the agency might do.
'We do not comment on potential, future regulatory changes,' Nixon said. 'Unless officially announced by HHS, discussion about future agency action should be regarded as pure speculation.'
In July, Moderna received full FDA approval for its COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months to 11 years old who are at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. The vaccine, Spikevax, is expected to be available for eligible populations in the 2025-26 respiratory virus season.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still recommends older patients get vaccinated against COVID-19, as well as people whose immune systems have been weakened by illness or medical treatments such as chemotherapy.
But if Pfizer loses its EUA, parents won't have the option to vaccinate their healthy young children.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long sown doubt about a wide range of vaccines, while saying parents should be able to choose which vaccines their children should get.
In late May, he announced that the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women was removed from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's immunization schedule. 'There's no evidence healthy kids need it today," Dr. Marty Makary, FDA commissioner, said in the May 27 video announcement posted to X.
The American Academy of Pediatrics pushed back, saying at the time that the removal 'ignores independent medical experts and leaves children at risk.'
Ending access to vaccination for healthy young children would strip families of choice, said Dr. Sean O'Leary, chair of the academy's committee on infectious diseases, in a May statement.
'Those who want to vaccinate may no longer be able to, as the implications for insurance coverage and access remain unclear," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
9 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
RFK Jr. Resurrects Decades-Old Vaccine Safety Task Force
The Department of Health and Human Services is resurrecting a decades-old vaccine safety task force, the agency announced Thursday. It's a full-circle moment for HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who claimed after the 2016 election that President Donald Trump had asked him to chair a 'commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity' after a meeting at Trump Tower. During Trump's first term, that promise fell by the wayside and the panel didn't come to fruition.
Bloomberg
9 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
WHOOP CEO Says Its Blood Pressure Tool ‘Follows the Law'
00:00 What's your view that the FDA does not have authority in this moment, your wellness, not medical device? Well, thanks for having me on. You know, you've spent the last three years developing a very innovative feature called Blood Pressure Insights, and this takes our wrist worn wearable alongside a calibration with a cuff and is allowed to provide you with a daily estimate of your blood pressure. And in turn, it also then gives you insights how your blood pressure may be affecting other things in your wellness. This could be sleep, stress, nutrition, a variety of different wellness factors. And the FDA is coming forward saying that they believe that this should be regulated. Now, the 21st Century Cures Act makes it very clear that wellness intended features are not supposed to be regulated by the FDA, and the FDA is intended to actually just regulate medical devices that are diagnosing something. So there's this key question of intended use. And you can see this with other physiological metrics like heart rate monitoring, for example, where Hari monitoring has wellness applications and medical applications. The wellness applications might be things like exercise or stress monitoring or sleep monitoring. And we do all that right. And alternatively, there could be, you know, a diagnosis for AFib, and that would be an example where the say, well, well, that's what the FDA misinterpreted of. Right. But you're a smart guy and you employ lots of smart people. Why not just go through the FDA process in the first place kind of foreseeing that this might come up? Well, you have to understand, there's different use cases, right? One use case for blood pressure is around wellness. And there's other use cases that might be a medical diagnosis. And we're certainly looking at, you know, cleared products as well and a longer term horizon. But we're providing a lot of value today and we're following the law again. The 21st Century Cures Act makes it very clear if a product is intended for a wellness use case, it's not supposed to be regulated by the FDA. So then the fundamental question becomes, does blood pressure have wellness intended use cases? We believe it does, right? There's an avalanche of peer reviewed research that shows that blood pressure, not surprisingly, is influenced and influences other aspects of your well, well, why call it medical grade? Why market it that way? Well, we recently came out with the WOOP five data and the BMJ and a key distinguishing factor between the five data and the M.G. is that the M.G. has a medically cleared feature on it. Now, both of those products have a number of wellness features associated with it. The WU PMG happens to have an EKG monitor as part of that that can detect A-fib. And by the way, we spent two and a half years working with the FDA to have that be a cleared feature. So that is the distinguishing factor between those two hardware's. And I want to be very clear in the app, there's an enormous number of medical disclaimers explaining what is for wellness and what is for medical capabilities. Well, you've said this is a misunderstanding. What happens next? Will you continue to fight the FDA on or in the background? Are you trying to reach some solution? We have a lot of respect for the team and we've engaged with them on a number of different features over the years. We think in this specific case they have it wrong and so we're going to continue engaging with them on it. We've responded to their warning letter outlining how we feel about this and why we think we're following the law and we look forward to continuing to engage with them on it. Well, that must take up head space and ultimately your time. How does that impact your future product roadmap? How does more broadly, the FDA acting this way affect innovation more broadly, do you think? Ultimately, I think that, you know, innovation needs to be able to thrive in the United States. WOOP is one of the first wearables in the world that can measure blood pressure accurately from the wrist. That's a really big deal. And it's also being accepted in 50 other markets around the world. So, you know, we want to make sure that there's policies that are consistent here in the U.S. that really allow companies to innovate and to operate. It's also worth noting, you know, we have a lot of people using this every single day. And overwhelmingly, if you look at the feedback from our members, they absolutely love this feature and they talk about how accurate is and how it's helping them understand their wellness. So we feel like we're on the right side of history and we're going to continue educating the FDA on what we're doing. Well well, I'm very quickly I'm not a we use it, but I'm very conscious that in the Premier League and other international football players, it's it's very in the public conscience. I just wonder like is this a good PR moment for you to fight America's regulator? I think in the long run will be on the right side of history and that maybe in a very short period of time, too. I think that fighting for innovation, fighting for Americans access to health data is the right thing to do. And, you know, I've spent 13 years building this company. When I first started, the idea that you could measure sleep or heart rate accurately from the wrist seemed impossible. And now we're able to do blood pressure accurately from the wrist. That's a really big deal. And I think it should be celebrated as long as there's the right guidelines in place and the right education in place for members to understand how to use. And that's what we've done with this feature, and that's why we're proud of it.
Associated Press
9 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge orders RFK Jr.'s health department to stop sharing Medicaid data with deportation officials
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge ordered the nation's health department to stop giving deportation officials access to the personal information — including home addresses — of all 79 million Medicaid enrollees. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services first handed over the personal data on millions of Medicaid enrollees in a handful of states in June. After an Associated Press report identified the new policy, 20 states filed a lawsuit to stop its implementation. In July, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services entered into a new agreement that gave the Department of Homeland Security daily access to view the personal data — including Social Security numbers and home address — of all the nation's 79 million Medicaid enrollees. Neither agreement was announced publicly. The extraordinary disclosure of such personal health data to deportation officials in the Trump administration's far-reaching immigration crackdown immediately prompted the lawsuit over privacy concerns. The Medicaid data sharing is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to provide DHS with more data on migrants. In May, for example, a federal judge refused to block the Internal Revenue Service from sharing immigrants' tax data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to help agents locate and detain people living without legal status in the U.S. The order, issued by federal Judge Vince Chhabria in California, temporarily halts the health department from sharing personal data of enrollees in those 20 states, which include California, Arizona, Washington and New York. 'Using CMS data for immigration enforcement threatens to significantly disrupt the operation of Medicaid—a program that Congress has deemed critical for the provision of health coverage to the nation's most vulnerable residents,' Chhabria wrote in his decision, issued on Tuesday. Chhabria, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said that the order will remain in effect until the health department outlines 'reasoned decisionmaking' for its new policy of sharing data with deportation officials. A spokesperson for the federal health department declined to directly answer whether the agency would stop sharing its data with DHS. HHS has maintained that its agreement with DHS is legal. Immigrants who are not living in the U.S. legally, as well as some lawfully present immigrants, are not allowed to enroll in the Medicaid program that provides nearly free coverage for health services. But federal law requires all states to offer emergency Medicaid, a temporary coverage that pays only for lifesaving services in emergency rooms to anyone, including non-U.S. citizens. Medicaid is a jointly funded program between states and the federal government. Immigration advocates have said the disclosure of personal data could cause alarm among people seeking emergency medical help for themselves or their children. Other efforts to crack down on illegal immigration have made schools, churches, courthouses and other everyday places feel perilous to immigrants and even U.S. citizens who fear getting caught up in a raid. 'Protecting people's private health information is vitally important,' Washington state's Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement. 'And everyone should be able to seek medical care without fear of what the federal government may do with that information.' ___
