Overview of FDA Drug Approval and Labeling.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates a variety of products, including medical, food, and tobacco products. Prior to the creation of the FDA, there were few protections to the public around the contents and sale of food and pharmaceuticals. Over time, legislation was passed and amended that ensured drugs and biologics undergo extensive review by multidisciplinary teams to provide assurance that marketed products are safe and effective for their intended use. The FDA-approved drug labeling is the primary tool for communicating essential information regarding the safe and effective use of a drug product. As such, providers should be familiar with the format of the prescribing information because it is a valuable source of information, particularly prior to prescribing a new drug for the first time. Although there are clinical circumstances in which off-label drug use may be warranted, prescribing drugs off-label involves a context of use that has not undergone the FDA's rigorous evaluation of the benefit-risk assessment.

Effect of HIV Antibody VRC01 on Viral Rebound after Treatment Interruption.

BACKGROUND: The discovery of potent and broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs) against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has made passive immunization a potential strategy for the prevention and treatment of HIV infection. We sought to determine whether passive administration of VRC01, a bNAb targeting the HIV CD4-binding site, can safely prevent or delay plasma viral rebound after the discontinuation of antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: We conducted two open-label trials (AIDS Clinical Trials Group [ACTG] A5340 and National Institutes of Health [NIH] 15-I-0140) of the safety, side-effect profile, pharmacokinetic properties, and antiviral activity of VRC01 in persons with HIV infection who were undergoing interruption of ART. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants were enrolled, and one serious alcohol-related adverse event occurred. Viral rebound occurred despite plasma VRC01 concentrations greater than 50 µg per milliliter. The median time to rebound was 4 weeks in the A5340 trial and 5.6 weeks in the NIH trial. Study participants were more likely than historical controls to have viral suppression at week 4 (38% vs. 13%, P=0.04 by a two-sided Fisher's exact test in the A5340 trial; and 80% vs. 13%, P<0.001 by a two-sided Fisher's exact test in the NIH trial) but the difference was not significant at week 8. Analyses of virus populations before ART as well as before and after ART interruption showed that VRC01 exerted pressure on rebounding virus, resulting in restriction of recrudescent viruses and selection for preexisting and emerging antibody neutralization-resistant virus. CONCLUSIONS: VRC01 slightly delayed plasma viral rebound in the trial participants, as compared with historical controls, but it did not maintain viral suppression by week 8. In the small number of participants enrolled in these trials, no safety concerns were identified with passive immunization with a single bNAb (VRC01). (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTG A5340 and NIH 15-I-0140 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02463227 and NCT02471326 .).

Value of an Additional Review for Eosinophil Quantification in Esophageal Biopsies.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) requires a peak count of 15 eosinophils per high-power field (hpf). Herein, the peak eosinophil count specified by a pathologist was compared with the second review of a research assistant. Of 477 biopsies, 106 had a peak count between 1 and 14 eosinophils/hpf cited in the pathology report, and 23/106 (22%) had ≥15 eosinophils/hpf on second review. The pathology report detected potential EoE with 99% specificity, but 80% sensitivity. As such, an additional review of esophageal biopsies yields higher eosinophil counts in ∼5% of cases. We propose that biopsies with a count between 1 and 14 eosinophils/hpf require further investigation because ∼22% may yield a potential EoE diagnosis.