Focus On Paxlovid’s Effectiveness Against Covid With FDA Endorsement
News outlets cover developments about covid treatment Paxlovid, as a study shows it's 80% effective against severe covid if taken inside the first five days. A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration also endorsed the drug as an option for adults at high risk for severe covid.
The New York Times:
F.D.A. Advisers Endorse Paxlovid’s Benefits As A Covid Treatment
A panel of expert advisers to the Food and Drug Administration on Thursday endorsed Paxlovid as a treatment for adults with Covid who are at high risk for progression to severe illness. The move is likely to lead to full approval of the drug, which has been available under emergency use authorization. The 16-1 vote came after the agency released a new analysis showing that Paxlovid reduced hospitalizations and deaths among both unvaccinated and vaccinated people. Agency researchers estimated, based on Covid rates in January, that Paxlovid could “lead to 1,500 lives saved and 13,000 hospitalizations averted each week in the United States.” (Zimmer and Jewett, 3/16)
Axios:
Questions Still Swirl Over Paxlovid As FDA Full Approval Nears
Pfizer's antiviral Paxlovid is one step closer to gaining full approval from the Food and Drug Administration, but whether that convinces more doctors to prescribe it is an open question. (Moreno, 3/17)
CIDRAP:
Paxlovid 80% Effective Against Severe COVID When Taken In First 5 Days
The antiviral drug combination nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (Paxlovid) was estimated to be 54% effective against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2, BA.4, and BA.5 hospitalization or death but was 80% when taken within 5 days of symptom onset, according to an observational study published yesterday in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. (Van Beusekom, 3/16)
How hospitals are affected as emergency declarations come to an end —
St. Louis Public Radio:
St. Louis Health Director Urges Caution As Hospitals Drop Masks
After a move by three area hospital systems to drop their mask requirements three years into the pandemic, St. Louis’ health director is urging caution. SSM Health, Mercy and St. Luke’s no longer require patients, visitors or staff to wear masks, the hospitals said, citing decreased levels of COVID-19 in the community and low hospitalizations. “We cannot have a black-and-white approach to mandates just because the overwhelming number of us are fortunate enough to maybe be of a certain demographic that doesn’t put us at risk,” Dr. Mati Hlatshwayo Davis, the health director for St. Louis, said Thursday. (Bauer, 3/16)
Modern Healthcare:
Why Health Systems May Never Recover Pre-COVID Inpatient Volumes
Many hospitals and health systems struggled to maintain inpatient admissions in 2022, adding to financial woes already compounded by labor shortages and higher operating costs. (Hudson, 3/16)
KHN:
Temp Nurses Cost Hospitals Big During Pandemic. Lawmakers Are Now Mulling Limits
To crack down on price gouging, proposed legislation in Missouri calls for allowing felony charges against health care staffing agencies that substantially raise their prices during a declared emergency. A New York bill includes a cap on the amount staffing agencies can charge health care facilities. And a Texas measure would allow civil penalties against such agencies. These proposed regulations — and others in at least 11 more states, according to the American Staffing Association industry trade group — come after demand for travel nurses, who work temporary assignments at different facilities, surged to unprecedented levels during the worst of the covid-19 pandemic. (Sable-Smith, 3/17)
In other pandemic news —
KHN:
California’s Covid Misinformation Law Is Entangled In Lawsuits, Conflicting Rulings
Gov. Gavin Newsom may have been prescient when he acknowledged free speech concerns as he signed California’s covid misinformation bill last fall. In a message to lawmakers, the governor warned of “the chilling effect other potential laws may have” on the ability of doctors to speak frankly with patients but expressed confidence that the one he was signing did not cross that line. Yet the law — meant to discipline doctors who give patients false information about covid-19 — is now in legal limbo after two federal judges issued conflicting rulings in recent lawsuits that say it violates free speech and is too vague for doctors to know what it bars them from telling patients. (Wolfson, 3/17)
