united states food and drug administration

Background. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a disorder characterized by periods of airflow
cessation (apnea) or reduced airflow (hypopnea) during sleep. The diagnosis and severity of
OSA, and response to therapy, have historically been assessed using the apnea-hypopnea index
(AHI). However, several definitions of this measure exist, and the utility of the AHI and
associated measures as valid surrogate measures of health outcomes has been questioned. OSA is
commonly treated with the use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices during
sleep. The efficacy of CPAP, including for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
clearance/approval, has been based on changes in AHI, but the long-term effect of CPAP on
health outcomes and the role of disease severity (as measured by AHI) or sleepiness symptoms
on the putative effect of CPAP are unclear.
Methods. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane databases, CINAHL, and
ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2010 through March 22, 2021; we screened reference lists of the
2011 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) OSA report and other systematic
reviews for earlier studies. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and
nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCS) of CPAP that adjusted for potential confounders for
CPAP evaluation. We also included other comparative studies that reported both changes in
potential intermediate or surrogate measures (e.g., AHI) and effects on health outcomes. All
studies had to report effects on prespecified long-term (12 months for most outcomes) health
outcomes in adults with OSA. We did not evaluate sleepiness, other symptoms, or intermediate
outcomes. We excluded observational studies that did not directly compare treatment options.
Results. The 52 identified studies used highly inconsistent criteria to define breathing measures
(apneas, hypopneas, and oxygen desaturation). Definitions of respiratory disturbance events
(e.g., apneas, hypopneas) and criteria to define or categorize severity of OSA are highly
inconsistent across studies, despite frequent claims of using standard national or international
definitions. Possible differences in study findings based on heterogeneity of OSA and sleep study
measures could not be elucidated. Among 31 studies that directly compared CPAP and no CPAP
(29 studies) or sham CPAP (2 studies), 14 were RCTs (12 intention-to-treat [ITT]) and 17 were
NRCSs (11 analyses of CPAP users versus nonusers).
With one exception, RCTs did not find statistically significant effects for any cardiovascular
(CV) outcome. RCTs did not provide evidence that CPAP affects the risk of all-cause mortality
(summary effect size [ES] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66 to 1.21), CV mortality
(summary ES 0.99, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.53), stroke (summary ES 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.35),
myocardial infarction (summary ES 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.41), or composite CV outcomes (ES
range 0.42 to 1.10 across studies, all statistically nonsignificant); all with low strength of
evidence (SoE). The three RCTs that aimed to be powered for composite CV events failed to
vi
show a significant or clinically meaningful effect. The NRCSs, overall, found significant
adjusted associations between CPAP use and all-cause mortality. Combining the RCTs and
NRCSs, the summary ES for all-cause mortality was ES 0.61 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.76), supporting a
low SoE of an association between CPAP use and lower risk of death. Data from the NRCSs did
not change other conclusions. Both RCTs and NRCSs provide insufficient evidence regarding
the effect of CPAP on the risk of transient ischemic attack, angina, coronary artery
revascularization, congestive heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.
RCTs also did not provide evidence that CPAP affects the risk of driving accidents or the risk of
incident diabetes (both low SoE), or that CPAP results in clinically significant changes in
depression or anxiety scores, executive cognitive function measures, or nonspecific quality of
life measures (all low SoE). RCTs provide insufficient evidence regarding the effect of CPAP on
incident hypertension, functional status measures, male or female sexual function, or days of
work missed. Data from the NRCSs did not change these conclusions.
Eligible studies provided insufficient evidence regarding possible differences in the effect of
CPAP based on patient characteristics (such as disease severity or comorbidities), different
diagnostic criteria, or whether RCTs were analyzed as ITT or “as-treated”.
Eligible studies provided insufficient evidence about adverse events due to CPAP use. Many
studies did not collect such data. Adverse events reported in the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) database mostly related to inadequate humidification, user errors, or
device malfunction. No deaths were attributed to CPAP use.
Review of the FDA database found 163 CPAP devices used to treat adults with sleep apnea. The
large majority of FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification records cite other previously approved
CPAP devices to support claims of equivalence. The available data did not reference clinical
studies to support the device manufacturers’ claims.
Review of the National Institutes of Health’s RePORTER revealed no germane funded trials.
Review of ClinicalTrials.gov revealed a single large RCT with a mortality endpoint, but no
updating of the site since 2015 and five additional small trials (2 addressing events in patients
with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or hypertensive pulmonary edema; 3 measuring AHI,
cognition, or kidney function).
RCTs comparing CPAP and mandibular advancement devices found no differences in depression
or anxiety symptoms (low SoE). There was insufficient evidence for other outcomes. RCTs
comparing fixed and autoCPAP found no differences in functional status; other long-term
outcomes were not reported. No eligible studies evaluated comparisons of other types of CPAP.
No studies have evaluated the validity of changes in intermediate or surrogate measures (such as
change in AHI during a clinical trial) as predictors of long-term health outcomes. No studies
reported surrogacy or mediation analyses, nor did any compare the concordance of changes in
different sleep study and symptom measures with health outcomes. Across the 15 studies that
reported both changes in intermediate or surrogate measures and effects on long-term health
vii
outcomes, data were too sparse to allow adequate cross-study evaluation of concordance between
change in any specific measure and health outcome or sleep questionnaires.
Conclusions. Studies are highly inconsistent as to how they define breathing measures during
sleep studies and OSA itself. Insufficient evidence exists to assess the validity of change in AHI
as a surrogate or intermediate measure for long-term health outcomes. Until such validation has
been conducted, it cannot be assumed that changes (e.g., improvements) in intermediate or
surrogate outcomes are correlated with long-term health outcomes.
RCTs do not provide evidence that CPAP prescription affects long-term, clinically important
outcomes. Specifically, with low SoE, RCTs do not demonstrate that CPAP affects all-cause
mortality, various CV outcomes, clinically important changes in psychosocial measures, or other
clinical events. NRCSs reported associations between CPAP use and reduced risk of all-cause
death. NRCS results did not differ from RCTs for other outcomes. We have limited confidence
that the summary estimates are close to any true effect.
Comparative studies did not adequately address whether the effect of CPAP varies based on
disease severity (e.g., as assessed by AHI), symptoms (e.g., as assessed by sleepiness scales),
other patient characteristics, different features or modes or CPAP, or different criteria or
definitions of sleep measures or OSA diagnosis.
Additional well-conducted comparative studies are needed to better assess the potential effects of
CPAP on long-term outcomes for patients with OSA, whether any particular group of patients
may benefit to a greater or lesser degree from CPAP treatment, and whether of changes in AHI
(and/or other breathing measures) are valid intermediate or surrogate measures of health
outcomes. Associations identified in comparative studies could serve as the basis for more
rigorous trials.

This report updates the 2020–21 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2020;69[No. RR-8]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. During the 2021–22 influenza season, the following types of vaccines are expected to be available: inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4).

The 2021–22 influenza season is expected to coincide with continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html. Recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html, and additional clinical guidance is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-v....

Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 28, 2020; February 25, 2021; and June 24, 2021. Primary updates to this report include the following six items. First, all seasonal influenza vaccines available in the United States for the 2021–22 season are expected to be quadrivalent. Second, the composition of 2021–22 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2) components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture–based and recombinant vaccines), an influenza A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020 (H3N2)-like virus, an influenza B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)-like virus, and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Third, the approved age indication for the cell culture–based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), has been expanded from ages ≥4 years to ages ≥2 years. Fourth, discussion of administration of influenza vaccines with other vaccines includes considerations for coadministration of influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines. Providers should also consult current ACIP COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and CDC guidance concerning coadministration of these vaccines with influenza vaccines. Vaccines that are given at the same time should be administered in separate anatomic sites. Fifth, guidance concerning timing of influenza vaccination now states that vaccination soon after vaccine becomes available can be considered for pregnant women in the third trimester. As previously recommended, children who need 2 doses (children aged 6 months through 8 years who have never received influenza vaccine or who have not previously received a lifetime total of ≥2 doses) should receive their first dose as soon as possible after vaccine becomes available to allow the second dose (which must be administered ≥4 weeks later) to be received by the end of October. For nonpregnant adults, vaccination in July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that later vaccination might not be possible. Sixth, contraindications and precautions to the use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 have been modified, specifically with regard to persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to an influenza vaccine. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, LAIV, or RIV of any valency is a precaution to use of ccIIV4. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, ccIIV, or LAIV of any valency is a precaution to use of RIV4. Use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 in such instances should occur in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under supervision of a provider who can recognize and manage a severe allergic reaction; providers can also consider consulting with an allergist to help identify the vaccine component responsible for the reaction. For ccIIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any ccIIV of any valency or any component of ccIIV4 is a contraindication to future use of ccIIV4. For RIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any RIV of any valency or any component of RIV4 is a contraindication to future use of RIV4.

This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2021–22 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu); vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

Background. Depressive disorders can affect long-term mental and physical health functioning among children and adolescents, including increased risk of suicide. Despite access to several nonpharmacological, pharmacological, and combined treatment options for childhood depression, clinicians contend with sparse evidence and are concerned about harms associated with treatment.

Methods. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and moderators of benefits and harms of available nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments for children and adolescents with a confirmed diagnosis of a depressive disorder (DD)—major depressive disorder (MDD), persistent depressive disorder (previously termed dysthymia) or DD not otherwise specified. We searched five databases and other sources for evidence available from inception to May 29, 2019, dually screened the results, and analyzed eligible studies.

Results. We included in our analyses data from 60 studies (94 articles) that met our review eligibility criteria. For adolescents (study participants’ ages range from 12 to 18 years) with MDD, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), fluoxetine, escitalopram, and combined fluoxetine and CBT may improve depressive symptoms (1 randomized controlled trial [RCT] each, n ranges from 212 to 311); whether the magnitude of improvement is clinically significant is unclear. Among adolescents or children with MDD, CBT plus medications (8–17 years) may be associated with lower rates of relapse (1 RCT [n = 121]). In the same population (6–17 years), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may be associated with improved response (7 RCTs [n = 1,525]; risk difference [RD], 72/1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2 to 24], I2 = 9%) and functional status (5 RCTs [n = 941]; standardized mean difference, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.29]; I2 = 0%). For adolescents or children with any DD (7–18 years), CBT or family therapy may be associated with improvements in symptoms, response, or functional status (1 RCT each, n ranges from 64 to 99). Among children with any DD (7–12 years), family-based interpersonal therapy may be associated with improved symptoms (1 RCT, n = 38). Psychotherapy trials did not report harms. SSRIs may be associated with a higher risk of serious adverse events among adolescents or children with MDD (7–18 years; 9 RCTs [n = 2,206]; RD, 20/1,000 [95% CI, 1 to 440]; I2, 4%) and with a higher risk of withdrawal due to adverse events among adolescents with MDD (12–18 years; 4 RCTs [n = 1,296], RD, 26/1,000 [95% CI, 6 to 45]; I2, 0%). Paroxetine (1 RCT [n = 180]) may be associated with a higher risk of suicidal ideation or behaviors among adolescents with MDD (12–18 years). Evidence was insufficient to judge the risk of suicidal ideation or behavior for other SSRIs for adolescents and children with MDD or other DD (7–18 years) (10 RCTs [n = 2,368]; relative risk, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.45]; I2, 8%). However, this report excluded data on inpatients and those without depressive disorders, whom the Food and Drug Administration included in finding an increased risk of suicidality for all antidepressants across all indications.

Conclusion. Efficacious treatments exist for adolescents with MDD. SSRIs may be associated with increased withdrawal and serious adverse events. No evidence on harms of psychotherapy were identified.

Even with pharmaceutical-grade CBD, potentially dangerous adverse events can occur. With unregulated CBD products, the adverse events are unpredictable, in part because their ingredients might not be the same as those listed on the package.