DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment Report COVID-19 Vaccine Astrazeneca EMA/94907/2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment Report COVID-19 Vaccine Astrazeneca EMA/94907/2021 29 January 2021 EMA/94907/2021 Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) Assessment report COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca Common name: COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant]) Procedure No. EMEA/H/C/005675/0000 Note Assessment report as adopted by the CHMP with all information of a commercially confidential nature deleted. Official address Domenico Scarlattilaan 6 ● 1083 HS Amsterdam ● The Netherlands Address for visits and deliveries Refer to www.ema.europa.eu/how-to-find-us Send us a question Go to www.ema.europa.eu/contact Telephone +31 (0)88 781 6000 An agency of the European Union © European Medicines Agency, 2021. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Table of contents 1. Background information on the procedure .............................................. 7 1.1. Submission of the dossier ..................................................................................... 7 1.2. Steps taken for the assessment of the product ........................................................ 9 2. Scientific discussion .............................................................................. 12 2.1. Problem statement ............................................................................................. 12 2.1.1. Disease or condition ........................................................................................ 12 2.1.2. Epidemiology and risk factors ........................................................................... 12 2.1.3. Aetiology and pathogenesis .............................................................................. 12 2.1.4. Clinical presentation and diagnosis .................................................................... 13 2.1.5. Management ................................................................................................... 13 2.2. Quality aspects .................................................................................................. 15 2.2.1. Introduction.................................................................................................... 15 2.2.2. Active substance ............................................................................................. 15 2.2.3. Finished medicinal product ............................................................................... 25 2.2.4. Discussion on chemical, and pharmaceutical aspects ........................................... 35 2.2.5. Conclusions on the chemical, pharmaceutical and biological aspects ...................... 39 2.2.6. Recommendations for future quality development ............................................... 41 2.3. Non-clinical aspects ............................................................................................ 42 2.3.1. Pharmacology ................................................................................................. 42 2.3.2. Pharmacokinetics ............................................................................................ 46 2.3.3. Toxicology ...................................................................................................... 47 2.3.4. Ecotoxicity/environmental risk assessment ......................................................... 49 2.3.5. Discussion on non-clinical aspects ..................................................................... 49 2.3.6. Conclusion on the non-clinical aspects ............................................................... 54 2.4. Clinical aspects .................................................................................................. 54 2.4.1. Introduction.................................................................................................... 54 2.4.2. Pharmacokinetics ............................................................................................ 59 2.4.3. Pharmacodynamics .......................................................................................... 59 2.4.4. Discussion on clinical pharmacology ................................................................... 71 2.4.5. Conclusions on clinical pharmacology ................................................................. 73 2.5. Clinical efficacy .................................................................................................. 73 2.5.1. Main studies ................................................................................................... 74 2.5.2. Pooled efficacy analysis .................................................................................... 77 2.5.3. Discussion on clinical efficacy .......................................................................... 115 2.5.4. Conclusions on clinical efficacy ........................................................................ 123 2.6. Clinical safety .................................................................................................. 124 2.6.1. Methodology ................................................................................................. 124 2.6.2. Patient exposure ........................................................................................... 124 2.6.3. Adverse events ............................................................................................. 125 2.6.4. Serious adverse event/deaths/other significant events ....................................... 135 EMA/94907/2021 Page 2/181 2.6.5. Laboratory findings ........................................................................................ 136 2.6.6. Safety in special populations ........................................................................... 137 2.6.7. Immunological events .................................................................................... 137 2.6.8. Safety related to drug-drug interactions and other interactions ........................... 137 2.6.9. Discontinuation due to adverse events ............................................................. 138 2.6.10. Post marketing experience ............................................................................ 138 2.6.11. Discussion on clinical safety .......................................................................... 138 2.6.12. Conclusions on the clinical safety ................................................................... 141 2.7. Risk Management Plan ...................................................................................... 142 2.7.1. Safety concerns ............................................................................................ 142 2.7.2. Pharmacovigilance plan .................................................................................. 144 2.7.3. Risk minimisation measures............................................................................ 154 Routine Risk Minimisation Measures .......................................................................... 154 Summary of additional risk minimisation measures ..................................................... 154 2.8. Pharmacovigilance ........................................................................................... 157 2.8.1. Pharmacovigilance system .............................................................................. 157 2.8.2. Periodic Safety Update Reports submission requirements ................................... 158 2.9. New Active Substance ...................................................................................... 158 2.10. Product information ........................................................................................ 158 2.10.1. User consultation ......................................................................................... 158 2.10.2. Labelling exemptions ................................................................................... 158 2.10.3. Quick Response (QR) code ............................................................................ 161 2.10.4. Additional monitoring ................................................................................... 161 2.11. Compliance with scientific advice ...................................................................... 161 3. Benefit-Risk Balance ........................................................................... 162 3.1.1. Disease ........................................................................................................ 162 3.1.2. Available therapies and unmet medical need ..................................................... 162 3.1.3. Main clinical studies ....................................................................................... 162 3.2. Favourable effects ............................................................................................ 163 3.3. Uncertainties and limitations about favourable effects ........................................... 164 3.4. Unfavourable effects ......................................................................................... 166 3.5. Uncertainties and limitations about unfavourable effects ....................................... 168 3.6. Effects Table .................................................................................................... 169 3.7. Benefit-risk assessment and discussion ............................................................... 171 3.7.1. Importance of favourable and unfavourable effects ............................................ 171 3.7.2. Balance of benefits and risks .......................................................................... 172 3.7.3. Additional considerations on the benefit-risk balance ........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court for the District Of
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC and ) FOREST LABORATORIES ) HOLDINGS, LTD., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civ.No.14-1119-SLR ) SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES, LLC, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire and Maryellen Noreika, Esquire of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiffs. Of Counsel: Howard W. Levine, Esquire, Sanya Sukduang, Esquire, Jonathan R. Davies, Esquire, Courtney B. Gasp, Esquire, and Charles E. Lipsey, Esquire of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP. John C. Phillips, Esquire, David A. Bilson, Esquire and Megan C. Haney of Phillips, Goldman, Mclaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC. Of Counsel: Anthony G. Simon, Esquire, Anthony R. Friedman, Esquire, Benjamin R. Askew, Esquire, and Michael P. Kella, Esquire of The Simon Law Firm, P.C. Karen Elizabeth Keller, Esquire and Jeffrey Thomas Castellano, Esquire of Shaw Keller, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendants Hikma Pharmaceuticals LLC, Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, and West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp. Of Counsel: lmron T. Aly, Esquire, Joel M. Wallace, Esquire, and Helen H. Ji, Esquire of Schiff Hardin LLP. Richard D. Kirk, Esquire, Stephen B. Brauerman, Esquire and Sara E. Bussiere, Esquire of Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. Of Counsel: Beth D. Jacob, Esquire, Clifford Katz, Esquire, and Malavika A. Rao, Esquire of Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP. Karen Pascale, Esquire and Pilar G. Kraman, Esquire of Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendants Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Alembic Global Holding SA and Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Of Counsel: Steven J. Lee, Esquire, Michael K.
    [Show full text]
  • CHO Host Cell Proteins 3Rd Generation
    CHO Host Cell Proteins 3rd Generation Immunoenzymetric Assay for the Measurement of CHO Host Cell Proteins Catalog # F550 Intended Use immunoenzymetric assay (ELISA) method employed in this kit overcomes the limitations of Western blots This kit is intended for use in determining the presence providing on the order of 100 fold better sensitivity. This of host cell protein impurities in products manufactured simple to use, objective, and semi-quantitative ELISA is by expression in the CHO cell line. The kit is for a powerful method to aid in optimal purification process Research and Manufacturing Use Only and is not development, process control, routine quality control, intended for diagnostic use in humans or animals. This and product release testing. This kit is “generic” in the is the 3rd Generation ELISA kit for CHO HCP detection. sense that it is intended to react with essentially all of the Cygnus Technologies continues to market two earlier HCPs that could contaminate the product independent generation kits, Cat #s F015 and CM015 for CHO HCP of the purification process. The antibodies have been detection. While those kits are broadly reactive to CHO generated in goats and affinity purified using CHO HCPs HCPs among all strains and have been successfully found in protein free conditioned media. Western blot, qualified for a range of drug substances, this 3rd both 1 & 2 dimensional, was used as a preliminary Generation assay uses an even more broadly reactive method and established that the antibodies reacted to antibody. The 3rd Generation Cat# F550 kit offers the majority of HCP bands resolved by the PAGE greater sensitivity and a more linear standard curve separation.
    [Show full text]
  • Preclinical Development & IND Filing: Nuts, Bolts, Best Practices
    “Preclinical Development & IND Filing: Nuts, Bolts, Best Practices and Regulatory Aspects.” Speakers: Amit Kalgutkar (Pfizer), Chandra Prakash (Agios), Sanjeev Thohan (Novartis), Li- Chun Wang (Takeda), Wei Yin (Biogen) Organizers: Sanjeev Thohan and Chandra Prakash Date: 6/29/2017 Time: 8:30 am – 5.00 pm Location: Boston/Cambridge Area: Marriott Kendall Square, 50 Broadway, Cambridge MA 02142 Fees: $175 - Regular (before June 1st, 2017), $225 - Regular (after June 1st, 2017); $125 - Unemployed & Academic; $2000 - Major Sponsorship; $475 - Vendor Show Registration: www.PBSS.org Workshop Description: An investigational new drug application (IND) is an important milestone that marks the entry of a molecule into clinical development. Knowing the objectives, expectations and processes of assembling an IND is a key to not only successful filing, but also a promising clinical development path forward. Often there are cases where too many of our “nice-to-have” studies crowd the package at the expense of critical study needs/issues. This can lead to significant delays in clinical developments with back-and-forth of Q&A sessions both internally and with regulatory agencies. As we have seen, the regulatory landscape is changing as rapidly as the industry innovates into new therapeutic modalities. Therefore, it is critical to keep up to date on regulatory requirements and the industry’s best practices in different aspects of the IND: non- clinical safety, PK, CMC, and clinical plans. In this workshop, our speakers who bring years of experience with multiple successful IND filings, will discuss systematically the preclinical studies required for small molecule IND’s as well as the nuts and bolts of putting together a high–quality IND package.
    [Show full text]
  • Chadox1 Ncov-19 Vaccine Prevents SARS-Cov-2 Pneumonia in Rhesus Macaques
    Article ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine prevents SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in rhesus macaques https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2608-y Neeltje van Doremalen1,4, Teresa Lambe2,4, Alexandra Spencer2, Sandra Belij-Rammerstorfer2, Jyothi N. Purushotham1,2, Julia R. Port1, Victoria A. Avanzato1, Trenton Bushmaker1, Received: 13 May 2020 Amy Flaxman2, Marta Ulaszewska2, Friederike Feldmann3, Elizabeth R. Allen2, Hannah Sharpe2, Accepted: 24 July 2020 Jonathan Schulz1, Myndi Holbrook1, Atsushi Okumura1, Kimberly Meade-White1, Lizzette Pérez-Pérez1, Nick J. Edwards2, Daniel Wright2, Cameron Bissett2, Ciaran Gilbride2, Published online: 30 July 2020 Brandi N. Williamson1, Rebecca Rosenke3, Dan Long3, Alka Ishwarbhai2, Reshma Kailath2, Check for updates Louisa Rose2, Susan Morris2, Claire Powers2, Jamie Lovaglio3, Patrick W. Hanley3, Dana Scott3, Greg Saturday3, Emmie de Wit1, Sarah C. Gilbert2,5 ✉ & Vincent J. Munster1,5 ✉ Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 20191,2 and is responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic3. Vaccines are an essential countermeasure and are urgently needed to control the pandemic4. Here we show that the adenovirus-vector-based vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, which encodes the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, is immunogenic in mice and elicites a robust humoral and cell-mediated response. This response was predominantly mediated by type-1 T helper cells, as demonstrated by the profling of the IgG subclass and the expression of cytokines. Vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (using either a prime-only or a prime–boost regimen) induced a balanced humoral and cellular immune response of type-1 and type-2 T helper cells in rhesus macaques.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantification of Host Cell Protein Impurities Using the Agilent 6495C Triple Quadrupole LC/MS
    Application Note Pharma & Biopharma Quantification of Host Cell Protein Impurities using the Agilent 6495C Triple Quadrupole LC/MS Author Abstract Linfeng Wu Agilent Technologies, Inc., This Application Note describes a method for sub-ppm host cell protein quantification in a mAb product. The workflow featured an Agilent AssayMAP Bravo platform, an Agilent 1290 Infinity II LC, and an Agilent 6495C triple quadrupole LC/MS. Introduction Experimental Sample preparation The mAb sample was subjected to Host cell protein (HCP) impurities are Instrumentation denaturation, reduction, alkylation, and low-level protein impurities derived • Agilent AssayMAP Bravo system trypsin digestion using the AssayMAP from the host organisms during the (G5571AA) Bravo system. SIL peptides were biopharmaceutical manufacturing combined at equal molar concentration • Agilent 1290 Infinity II LC including: process. Due to their potential to affect and spiked into the sample digest at product safety and efficacy, HCPs • Agilent 1290 Infinity II high-speed eight different levels (6.25, 12.5, 25, 62.5, must be monitored and controlled in pump (G7120A) 125, 250, 12,500, and 125,000 amol/µg drug products according to regulatory • Agilent 1290 Infinity II per SIL peptide) for quantitative analysis. requirements1. Traditionally, the multisampler (G7167B) with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay LC/MS analysis sample cooler option (option 100) (ELISA) is the standard method for Samples were analyzed by the 6495C quantifying HCPs in protein therapeutics. • Agilent 1290 Infinity II triple quadrupole LC/MS in dMRM However, ELISA lacks the specificity thermostatted column mode using a nine-minute LC gradient. and coverage to identify and quantify compartment (G7116B) Tables 1 and 2 list detailed experimental individual HCPs.
    [Show full text]
  • Host Cell Protein Assays
    BIOLOGICS TESTING SOLUTIONS Host Cell Protein Assays Charles River works with clients to develop project-specific and platform-specific host cell protein (HCP) assays. Additionally, we serve clients with the characterization of commercially available kits and coverage determination. The type of assay required to determine HCP content is dependent upon the phase of product development. In early process development and early clinical phases, generic assays are normally acceptable. However, once the biopharmaceutical is used in Phase III clinical studies, a validated, product-specific HCP assay is usually required. We can provide clients with assay development and validation, regardless of whether they are in preclinical development or embarking on Phase III studies. What Are Host Cell Proteins? Host cell proteins (HCP) represent a heterogeneous pool of contaminant proteins that are an inevitable impurity of biopharmaceuticals, regardless of whether they are produced by recombinant fermentation or extracted from natural sources. Even after multiple sophisticated purification steps, HCPs may co-purify, or “hitchhike,” with the product, and thus need to be characterized and quantified in drug substance and in downstream purification process (DSP) intermediates. The risk for adverse effects such as immunogenic reaction does not necessarily correlate with the amount of certain host cell proteins, and even traces of an HCP can be highly immunogenic, or may adversely impact product quality over its shelf life. Traditional protein detection methods such as HPLC and total protein stains are not suitable for HCP detection due to insufficient sensitivity and specificity. Consequently, optimized immunoassays (ELISA) and mass spectrometry (MS) methods have established themselves as the methods of choice for the measurement and characterization of HCPs.
    [Show full text]
  • Astrazeneca-Oxford Vaccine Approved for Use in the U.K
    P2JW366000-6-A00100-17FFFF5178F ****** THURSDAY,DECEMBER 31,2020~VOL. CCLXXVI NO.154 WSJ.com HHHH $4.00 DJIA 30409.56 À 73.89 0.2% NASDAQ 12870.00 À 0.2% STOXX 600 400.25 g 0.3% 10-YR. TREAS. À 3/32 , yield 0.926% OIL $48.40 À $0.40 GOLD $1,891.00 À $10.50 EURO $1.2300 YEN 103.21 Deadly Attack at Airport Targets New Yemen Government U.S. IPO What’s News Market Reaches Business&Finance Record nvestorspiled into IPOs Iat a record rate in 2020, with companies raising Total $167.2 billion via 454 of- ferings on U.S. exchanges this year through Dec. 24. Few see signs of letup Few expect the euphoria after companies raise to wear off soon. A1 more than $167 billion Detenteisending in the global fight over tech taxes, despite pandemic with Franceresuming collec- tion of itsdigital-services tax BY MAUREEN FARRELL and the U.S. poised to retali- atewith tariffs.Other coun- Defying expectations,inves- tries areset to join the fray. A1 S tors piled intoinitial public of- China finished 2020 PRES feringsatarecordrateiN with a 10th consecutive TED 2020, and few expect the eu- month of expansion in its CIA phoria to wear off soon. manufacturing sector. A7 SO Companies raised $167.2 AS TheEUand China agreed TENSIONS HIGH: People fled after an explosion Wednesday at the airport in Aden, Yemen, moments after members of the billion through 454 offerings in principle on an invest- country’s newly sworn-in cabinet arrived. At least 22 people were killed, but all the members of the cabinet were safe.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcriptomic Profiling of Dromedary Camels Immunised with a MERS
    veterinary sciences Article Transcriptomic Profiling of Dromedary Camels Immunised with a MERS Vaccine Candidate Sharif Hala 1,2,3, Paolo Ribeca 4 , Haya A. Aljami 1,2, Suliman A. Alsagaby 5 , Ibrahim Qasim 6, Sarah C. Gilbert 7 and Naif Khalaf Alharbi 1,2,* 1 Vaccine Development Unit, Department of Infectious Disease Research, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC), Riyadh 11481, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] (S.H.); [email protected] (H.A.A.) 2 King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh 11481, Saudi Arabia 3 Pathogen Genomics Laboratory, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal 23955, Saudi Arabia 4 Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland, The James Hutton Institute, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, UK; [email protected] 5 Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University, Al Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] 6 Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture (MEWA), Riyadh 11481, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] 7 The Jenner Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 4BH, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infects dromedary camels and zoonotically infects humans, causing a respiratory disease with severe pneumonia and death. With no approved antiviral or vaccine interventions for MERS, vaccines are being developed for Citation: Hala, S.; Ribeca, P.; Aljami, camels to prevent virus transmission into humans. We have previously developed a chimpanzee H.A.; Alsagaby, S.A.; Qasim, I.; adenoviral vector-based vaccine for MERS-CoV (ChAdOx1 MERS) and reported its strong humoral Gilbert, S.C.; Alharbi, N.K.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Advances in Viral-Vectored Influenza Vaccines
    vaccines Review Clinical Advances in Viral-Vectored Influenza Vaccines Sarah Sebastian and Teresa Lambe * The Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Headington, Oxford OX3 DQ, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-1865-617621 Received: 19 April 2018; Accepted: 21 May 2018; Published: 24 May 2018 Abstract: Influenza-virus-mediated disease can be associated with high levels of morbidity and mortality, particularly in younger children and older adults. Vaccination is the primary intervention used to curb influenza virus infection, and the WHO recommends immunization for at-risk individuals to mitigate disease. Unfortunately, influenza vaccine composition needs to be updated annually due to antigenic shift and drift in the viral immunogen hemagglutinin (HA). There are a number of alternate vaccination strategies in current development which may circumvent the need for annual re-vaccination, including new platform technologies such as viral-vectored vaccines. We discuss the different vectored vaccines that have been or are currently in clinical trials, with a forward-looking focus on immunogens that may be protective against seasonal and pandemic influenza infection, in the context of viral-vectored vaccines. We also discuss future perspectives and limitations in the field that will need to be addressed before new vaccines can significantly impact disease levels. Keywords: viral vectors; influenza; clinical trials 1. Introduction Influenza virus is a respiratory pathogen that causes annual influenza epidemics affecting an estimated 15% of the global population with up to 645,000 deaths annually [1,2]. In addition, pandemic variants of the Influenza A virus (IAV) have been associated with upwards of 50 million deaths worldwide [3].
    [Show full text]
  • Jenner Institute Complementary Vaccines Platform Technologies
    WHO R&D Blueprint: Janssen Vaccines – Jenner Institute complementary Vaccines Platform Technologies Janssen Vaccines: Jenner Institute: Olga Popova Prof. Sarah Gilbert Jerome Custers WHO Geneva, 21 July 2016 Background • Jenner Institute & Janssen Vaccines presented respective proposals to WHO R&D Blueprint Workshop in April 2016, and were invited to join forces for Round 2 submission • Example of alignment, coordination and partnership between public and private sector stakeholders • Understanding nature of vaccine development, established complementary end‐to‐end skills and capabilities • Long‐term, sustainable & consistent approach and funding • High‐level flexible proposal with illustrative examples • «Bona fide»: collaborative framework to be developed JOINTLY TOWARDS TANGIBLE OUTCOMES x GLOBAL PUBLIC HEALTH 2 Success factors • Available platforms and previous experience with pathogens • Ability to invest time and resources, leverage expertise, minimise opportunity costs and ensure business continuity • Appropriate and functionable operational model, speed • Lean governance, partner alignment and milestone orientation INTERNAL • Reliable & qualified partners, durable commitments • Long‐term reliable funding (min 5‐year horizon) • Resolving vaccination indemnification / liability issue • Consistency in pathogen prioritisation and defined, consistent pre‐ established endpoint commitment • Clear and accelerated / streamlined regulatory pathways, conditions & predictability of licensure EXTERNAL • Anticipated deployment plans and community
    [Show full text]
  • Ventilation Recommendations Table
    SURVIVING SEPSIS CAMPAIGN INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SEPTIC SHOCK AND SEPSIS-ASSOCIATED ORGAN DYSFUNCTION IN CHILDREN VENTILATION RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE RECOMMENDATION #34 STRENGTH & QUALITY OF EVIDENCE We were unable to issue a recommendation about whether to Insufficient intubate children with fluid-refractory, catecholamine-resistant septic shock. However, in our practice, we commonly intubate children with fluid-refractory, catecholamine-resistant septic shock without respiratory failure. RECOMMENDATION #35 STRENGTH & QUALITY OF EVIDENCE We suggest not to use etomidate when intubating children • Weak with septic shock or other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. • Low-Quality of Evidence RECOMMENDATION #36 STRENGTH & QUALITY OF EVIDENCE We suggest a trial of noninvasive mechanical ventilation (over • Weak invasive mechanical ventilation) in children with sepsis-induced • Very Low-Quality of pediatric ARDS (PARDS) without a clear indication for intubation Evidence and who are responding to initial resuscitation. © 2020 Society of Critical Care Medicine and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Care Medicine. RECOMMENDATION #37 STRENGTH & QUALITY OF EVIDENCE We suggest using high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) • Weak in children with sepsis-induced PARDS. Remarks: The exact level • Very Low-Quality of of high PEEP has not been tested or determined in PARDS Evidence patients. Some RCTs and observational studies in PARDS have used and advocated for use of the ARDS-network PEEP to Fio2 grid though adverse hemodynamic effects of high PEEP may be more prominent in children with septic shock. RECOMMENDATION #38 STRENGTH & QUALITY OF EVIDENCE We cannot suggest for or against the use of recruitment Insufficient maneuvers in children with sepsis-induced PARDS and refractory hypoxemia.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    Case 1:12-cv-00472-BAH Document 42 Filed 07/05/12 Page 1 of 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 12-00472 (BAH) Judge Beryl A. Howell FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants. AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (“AstraZeneca”) has manufactured the drug quetiapine fumarate (“quetiapine”) under the brand name Seroquel® (“Seroquel”) since 1997 without generic competition. AstraZeneca brought this lawsuit, which presents a question of statutory interpretation, against the Food and Drug Administration, Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (collectively, “the FDA”), to challenge the FDA’s approval, on March 27, 2012, of generic versions of Seroquel. See Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), ¶ 3. AstraZeneca believes that, under the plain language of 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(F)(iv), codifying Section 505(j)(5)(F)(iv) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), it is entitled to total market exclusivity until December 2, 2012 for the safety information encapsulated in “Table 2,” which was approved for all Seroquel labels on December 2, 2009 and must be included on the labels of all generic versions of quetiapine. Based upon this belief, AstraZeneca seeks a judgment that the FDA’s recent approval of generic versions of quetiapine, while AstraZeneca retains exclusivity over Table 2, violated AstraZeneca’s exclusivity rights and was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. 1 Case 1:12-cv-00472-BAH Document 42 Filed 07/05/12 Page 2 of 49 Pending before the Court are Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment filed by AstraZeneca, ECF No.
    [Show full text]