Health
FDA Approved Artificial Blood Vessel Despite Warnings

When the biotech company Humacyte designed a study to see if its lab-grown blood vessel worked, it decided to measure whether blood was flowing freely through the high-tech tube 30 days after it was implanted in a person.
As those days passed, some of the 54 patients in the study ran into trouble. Doctors lost track of one. Four died. Four more had a limb amputated, including one who developed a clot and infection in the artificial vessel, Food and Drug Administration records show.
Humacyte, which is traded on the Nasdaq, counted all those patients as proof of success in talks with investors and in an article in JAMA Surgery.
At the F.D.A., though, scientists counted the deaths, amputations and the lost case as failures, records show, noting a lack of information to determine if the vessels were clear.
Still, the agency approved the vessels in December without a public review of the study. Top officials authorized it over the concerns of staff members who said in F.D.A. records that they found the study severely lacking or were alarmed by the dire consequences for patients when the vessels fell apart.
Now the company is ramping up its marketing efforts to hospitals and for use on the battlefield.
When a patient’s blood vessel is damaged, doctors typically find a blood vessel from another part of the body and graft it to repair blood flow. They turn to artificial vessels when patients are too badly injured to harvest a vein.
The Humacyte vessel is made from a mesh tube seeded with cells from the human heart. The cells grow over two months in a bioreactor, and at the end of the process, the human cells and genetic material are removed. A lab-grown tube, mostly made of collagen developed from the aortic cells, remains.
Before the vessel was approved, one F.D.A. medical reviewer pointed out that 37 of the 54 patients were not assessed in a safety check four months after getting the implant, with many dead or lost to follow-up. “There is significant uncertainty regarding the safety and effectiveness of this product beyond 30 days,” the F.D.A. report says.
Dr. Robert E. Lee, a vascular surgeon who cared for gunshot-wounded patients in Detroit for 30 years, retired in the fall from the F.D.A. in protest over the matter. In a review of more than 2,000 pages of company records conducted when he was an F.D.A. medical officer, Dr. Lee found that the vessel could rupture with no warning. Those events were “unpredictable, catastrophic and life-threatening,” he wrote in his F.D.A. review, parts of which were made public weeks ago.
“That’s an unacceptable risk for whatever slim benefit, if any, this product provides above the current standard treatments,” Dr. Lee, who had been a reviewer at the agency since 2015, said in an interview. He noted that doctors currently use the patients’ own vessels, if available, or tubes made of Gore-Tex.
An F.D.A. spokeswoman said the approval “was based on a careful evaluation of data from clinical trials that demonstrated a clinically meaningful benefit in restoring blood flow in the affected limb and ultimately limb salvage.”
Humacyte is also developing a graft for patients with dialysis, for those undergoing cardiac bypass surgery and for infants with a heart-related birth defect.
Dr. Laura Niklason, one of the company’s founders, said approval of the vessel, called Symvess, was a “milestone for regenerative medicine overall.”
She had begun work to create the lab-grown vessels decades earlier. In its 20 years, the company had logged no sales and accrued more than $660 million in debt, financial reports show.
In an interview, Dr. Niklason said the disagreement over how to label the patient deaths and amputations as successes or failures arose after the company decided to count cases as failures only when it was certain that blood flow was cut off. The F.D.A. took a more conservative approach to calculating the success rate for the product, she said. “Rational people can disagree,” she added.
The F.D.A. records do not indicate whether the problems with the vessels directly caused the deaths or amputations.
Dr. Niklason said that the company must use the agency numbers in marketing the product to clients but that it could present its more favorable figure to investment analysts. She also said the study was published before the F.D.A. reached its decision.
B.J. Scheessele, the company’s chief commercial officer, told investors this month that Humacyte was in talks with 26 hospitals to begin distribution. Mr. Scheessele also said the company was hoping to sell the vessels to the Defense Department for battlefield injuries. The U.S. Army gave Humacyte $6.8 million in 2017, embracing the product as an option for wounded soldiers.
Each artificial vessel costs $29,500, and Mr. Scheessele said the company hoped to market several thousand each year in the United States.
Dr. Niklason said in an interview that her interest in engineering a blood vessel was twofold. As a young doctor, she had observed that arterial disease was devastating.
She described an experience as a medical resident in the late 1990s watching a senior doctor make incision after incision in a patient’s legs and arm, seeking a healthy vessel to use in a heart bypass surgery. She called the procedure “barbaric.”
“To provide a new blood vessel for a patient who needs one, we usually have to rob Peter to pay Paul,” she said.
Since Dr. Niklason first began meeting with the F.D.A. in 2015 about starting a trial in humans, the agency repeatedly found fault with the company’s efforts to study the vessel’s use. Its trial involved people suffering major trauma, such as gunshot or car crash injuries, took place in U.S. hospitals and in Israel. The participants had an average age of 30, and half were Black patients.
Humacyte also provided the vessels to doctors treating injured soldiers in Ukraine.
By Nov. 9, 2023, Dr. Niklason described results of the studies to investors on an earnings call in glowing terms. Initially, she said the rate of blood flow through the vessels at 30 days was 90 percent — beating existing products on the market.
And the results in Ukraine were “remarkable,” she said. “We’re proud to be able to help our Ukrainian surgeon colleagues save life and limb in this wartime setting.”
Over the ensuing months, though, reviewers at the F.D.A., including Dr. Lee, would examine the same studies and conclude that they did not look nearly as good.
As a vascular and general surgeon in Detroit, Dr. Lee had decades of experience with victims of gunshots, stabbings, car crashes and other accident victims who might receive such vessels.
He said he was alarmed by the account of a man in Ukraine who began bleeding at the site of his surgical wound eight days after the vessel was implanted. Doctors discovered a two-millimeter hole in the Humacyte vessel and repaired it with sutures, according to F.D.A. records. Four days later, the patient was bleeding again, requiring removal of the graft the next day. The review suggested that an infection could have played a role.
Of 71 cases that Dr. Lee examined for a safety review, seven people, or about 10 percent, experienced vessel failures that resulted in major bleeding, according to the F.D.A. review. Dr. Lee said that was unheard-of in his experience with Gore-Tex grafts.
“Plastic arteries, they don’t usually present with catastrophic hemorrhage, unexpected like this,” Dr. Lee said. “You know the patients are sick,” with a fever or other signs of an infection, he continued. “You know something’s brewing, and you usually have time to take care of it.”
Hoping to glean more information about the root cause of the mid-vessel blowouts — and to be sure doctors were aware of the possibility — Dr. Lee began seeking a public advisory hearing on the device.
Thomas Zhou, a biostatistician in the biologics division of the F.D.A., also flagged concerns from the U.S. arm of the study and the data from Ukraine.
“Neither study met the usual criteria for an adequate and well-controlled trial,” he wrote.
The study of 16 patients treated in Ukraine was retrospective and observational, meaning researchers could look back at a larger pool of data and select the best cases. It showed “limited support of efficacy,” partly because the injuries were “skewed to shrapnel injuries” and not the devastating wounds typically seen on the battlefield, he said.
The U.S. study was “poorly conducted” and underwent “multiple major changes” during the trial, the statistical review said.
The records also show that F.D.A. scientists dismissed as successful the patient deaths and amputations, citing a lack of information or imaging studies.
As a result, the F.D.A. concluded that the vessel’s success rate for that key study was 67 percent, rather than the company’s 84 percent, F.D.A. records show. In comparison, artificial grafts already had blood flow rates of 82 percent, the review said.
The company also reported an 84 percent success rate at 30 days in an article published in November in JAMA Surgery, which is widely read by surgeons. The article stated that the Humacyte vessel “demonstrates improved outcomes” over other artificial vessels.
It also said the Symvess “provides benefits” in “infection resistance.” The F.D.A. review said there was no clinical evidence demonstrating that extra effect.
Dr. Lee failed to persuade top F.D.A. officials to hold a public advisory committee meeting where the study results could be discussed and reviewed by independent experts. The agency decided instead to send records to three external reviewers, who in turn identified failure of the Humacyte vessels “as a serious risk,” but added that “the appropriate patient population” would benefit, according to documents.
In announcing approval of the graft on Dec. 20, Dr. Peter Marks, head of the biologics division, called the vessels “innovative products that offer potentially lifesaving benefits for patients with severe injuries.”
But the product is accompanied by a black box warning — the agency’s most serious — for failures that “can result in life-threatening hemorrhage.” The F.D.A. also is requiring the company to continue reporting safety data.
Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, co-director of the Amy J. Reed Medical Device Safety Collaborative at Northeastern School of Law, said the F.D.A. should not have approved a product that its scientists deemed inferior to existing options.
“If the graft falls apart,” he said, or if it disconnects to where it is attached to the vessel, “it is basically akin to the patient getting shot.”
Dr. Lee said he hoped the F.D.A., with new leadership under the Trump administration, would still hold a public meeting.
“Every surgeon who uses it needs to see the things that I did,” he said.

Health
Dance Your Way to Weight Loss: Burn Fat and Have Fun in 30 Minutes!

Use left and right arrow keys to navigate between menu items.
Use escape to exit the menu.
Sign Up
Create a free account to access exclusive content, play games, solve puzzles, test your pop-culture knowledge and receive special offers.
Already have an account? Login
Health
‘I’m a pediatrician: I get these top 11 questions about measles’

As measles cases continue to spread throughout the U.S. — with 12 states reporting official outbreaks, according to the latest CDC data — concern is growing among high-risk groups.
Children under the age of 5 are most vulnerable to measles, health experts confirm.
The CDC recommends that children receive two doses of the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine, starting with the first dose at 12 to 15 months of age, and a second dose at 4 through 6 years of age.
MEASLES OUTBREAKS EMERGE ACROSS US: SEE WHICH STATES HAVE REPORTED CASES
That means children under 5 may not have full protection.
As measles cases continue to spread throughout the U.S. — with 12 states reporting official outbreaks, according to the latest CDC data — concern is growing among high-risk groups. (iStock)
Allison Croucher, DO, a pediatrician and doctor of osteopathic medicine with Duly Health and Care in Illinois, said she frequently gets questions from concerned parents looking to protect their children from the highly contagious virus.
Chroucher shared some of the most common inquiries she receives, along with her responses.
1. Should I be worried about measles where I live or where I’m traveling to?
Measles cases have been reported in 20 states so far (according to the CDC): Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York City, New York State, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

Children under the age of 5 are most vulnerable to measles, health experts confirm. (iStock)
Even if you do not live in one of those areas, keep a close eye on local health alerts, since the disease is rapidly evolving.
Your state’s Department of Health website, which should end in “.gov,” is a great place to start. If you plan on traveling to an area with reported cases, be sure to seek guidance from your doctor beforehand.
2. How do I know if my child is fully vaccinated?
A child is considered fully vaccinated for measles if they have received two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine at least four weeks apart.
The first dose is typically given to children between 12 and 15 months old, followed by the second at four to six years.

In the early stages, symptoms to watch out for include fever, cough, runny nose, and red, irritated eyes. (iStock)
3. Can my infant get the vaccine early?
In certain cases, yes. Infants who are high-risk or traveling to areas with active cases may be eligible to get the MMR vaccine between six months and 12 months of age. This depends on individual circumstances, so it’s important to talk with your pediatrician.
Keep in mind that an early dose doesn’t count on the regular vaccination schedule — your child will still need two additional doses after their first birthday.
ANOTHER STATE CONFIRMS MEASLES CASE WITH INFECTED CHILD ITS FIRST OF YEAR
4. What if my infant is too young to get the MMR vaccine?
If your infant is too young for the vaccine, it’s important to take extra precautions to limit their exposure to others who are or might be ill. Don’t be afraid to decline travel or gatherings — you have every right to protect your child’s health.
5. How early can my child get their second MMR vaccine?
For children over one year, the second MMR dose can be given as early as four weeks after the first. Once they’ve received both doses, children are considered fully vaccinated and don’t require any additional doses.
“One to three of every 1,000 children infected with measles will die due to complications from the disease.”
6. We have been around other people who recently traveled. What symptoms should we watch for?
In the early stages, symptoms to watch out for include fever, cough, runny nose, and red, irritated eyes.
These symptoms usually appear seven to 14 days after initial exposure.
7. My child is showing signs of a cold. Could this be early-stage measles?
It’s not always easy to tell, since measles shares symptoms with many other illnesses. One key differentiator is that children with measles typically display very high fevers, around 104°F. They also tend to be very fussy.
Around the second or third day of symptoms, many patients develop small, bluish-white spots on their inner cheeks, referred to as Koplik spots — though not every child will develop these spots. The telltale red rash typically develops three to five days into the illness.

A child is considered fully vaccinated for measles if they have received two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine at least four weeks apart. (Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images)
8. What does the measles rash look like?
This rash typically starts three to five days after the initial symptoms. It begins as small spots on the face near the hairline, then spreads downwards and can cover the entire body.
9. Why is measles dangerous?
Measles can have many complications, ranging from mild to severe. About one in 10 people will develop ear infections or diarrhea.
About one in five unvaccinated children with measles will require hospitalization. Up to one in 20 children will contract pneumonia, which is the most common cause of death from the disease.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
About one in 1,000 children will develop encephalitis, or inflammation and swelling of the brain. This can lead to seizures, lifelong disability or even death. In all, one to three of every 1,000 children infected with measles will die due to complications from the disease.
10. Why aren’t some people getting their kids the MMR vaccine?
There is a growing amount of misinformation and disinformation circulating about vaccines, which has led some parents to delay or skip them altogether.
The MMR vaccine has been safely administered to millions of people and has an excellent safety record — and research has repeatedly debunked the myth that the vaccine is linked to autism.
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
11. What should I do if I think my child might have the measles?
Don’t wait — contact your doctor right away. They can guide you through the next steps.
The above questions and answers were provided by Allison Croucher, DO, a pediatrician and doctor of osteopathic medicine with Duly Health and Care in Illinois.
Health
‘Vaguely Threatening’: Federal Prosecutor Queries Leading Medical Journal

A federal prosecutor in Washington has contacted The New England Journal of Medicine, considered the world’s most prestigious medical journal, with questions that suggested without evidence that it was biased against certain views and influenced by external pressures.
Dr. Eric Rubin, the editor in chief of N.E.J.M., described the letter as “vaguely threatening” in an interview with The New York Times.
At least three other journals have received similar letters from Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington. Mr. Martin has been criticized for using his office to target opponents of the administration.
His letters accused the publications of being “partisans in various scientific debates” and asked a series of accusatory questions about bias and the selection of research articles.
Do they accept submissions from scientists with “competing viewpoints”? What do they do if the authors whose work they published “may have misled their readers”? Are they transparent about influence from “supporters, funders, advertisers and others”?
News of the letter to N.E.J.M. was reported earlier by STAT, a health news outlet.
Mr. Martin also asked about the role of the National Institutes of Health, which funds some of the research the journals publish, and the agency’s role “in the development of submitted articles.”
Amanda Shanor, a First Amendment expert at the University of Pennsylvania, said the information published in reputable medical journals like N.E.J.M. is broadly protected by the Constitution.
In most cases, journals have the same robust rights that apply to newspapers — the strongest the Constitution provides, she added.
“There is no basis to say that anything other than the most stringent First Amendment protections apply to medical journals,” she said. “It appears aimed at creating a type of fear and chill that will have effects on people’s expression — that’s a constitutional concern.”
It’s unclear how many journals have received these letters or the criteria that Mr. Martin used to decide which publications to target. The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.
“Our job is to evaluate science and evaluate it in an unbiased fashion,” Dr. Rubin said. “That’s what we do and I think we do it well. The questions seem to suggest that there’s some bias in what we do — that’s where the vaguely threatening part comes in.”
Jeremy Berg, the former editor in chief of the journal Science, said he thought the letters were designed to “intimidate journals to bend over backward” to publish papers that align with the administration’s beliefs — on climate change and vaccines, for example — even if the quality of the research is poor.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s health secretary, singled out N.E.J.M in an interview with the “Dr. Hyman Show” podcast last year as an example of a medical journal that has participated in “lying to the public” and “retracting the real science.”
Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the Health and Human Services Department, declined to comment on whether Mr. Kennedy had any involvement with the letters.
In the interview, Mr. Kennedy said he would seek to prosecute medical journals under federal anti-corruption laws.
“I’m going to litigate against you under the racketeering laws, under the general tort laws,” he said. “I’m going to find a way to sue you unless you come up with a plan right now to show how you’re going to start publishing real science.”
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the new director of N.I.H., has vigorously criticized the leadership of scientific journals. Recently he co-founded a new journal as an alternative to traditional scientific publishing. It has published contrarian views on Covid.
Other prominent journals said they had not received the letter. On Friday, The Lancet, which is based in Britain, published a scathing editorial in solidarity, calling the letters “an obvious ruse to strike fear into journals and impinge on their right to independent editorial oversight.”
“Science and medicine in the U.S.A. are being violently dismembered while the world watches,” the editorial said.
One of Mr. Martin’s letters was sent to the journal Chest, a low-profile publication that publishes highly technical studies on topics like lung cancer and pneumonia. The New York Times reported last week that at least two other publishers had received nearly identically worded letters.
They declined to speak publicly for fear of retribution from the Trump administration.
Dr. Rubin said he, too, was worried about political backlash. Scientific journals rely on public funds in several indirect ways — for example, universities often use federal grants to pay for subscriptions.
“Are we concerned? Of course we are,” he said. “But we want to do the right thing.”
Mr. Martin gave the journals until May 2 to respond to his questions. N.E.J.M. has already responded to Mr. Martin with a statement that pushes back against his characterization of the journal.
“We use rigorous peer review and editorial processes to ensure the objectivity and reliability of the research we publish,” the statement read. “We support the editorial independence of medical journals and their First Amendment rights to free expression.”
This is not the N.E.J.M’s first brush with a Trump administration.
In 2020, the journal published an editorial condemning the president’s response to the pandemic — the first time the journal had supported or condemned a political candidate in its 208-year history.
Dr. Rubin said he doubted Mr. Martin’s letter was related to the editorial. The journal Chest didn’t write about Trump’s first term yet received a letter, he noted.
-
News1 week ago
Harvard would be smart to follow Hillsdale’s playbook. Trump should avoid Biden’s. | Opinion
-
Politics7 days ago
Video: Hegseth Attacks the Media Amid New Signal Controversy
-
Culture5 days ago
New Poetry Books That Lean Into Calm and Joy Amid Life’s Chaos
-
News1 week ago
Maps: Where Do Federal Employees Work in America?
-
Technology1 week ago
Pete Hegseth reportedly spilled Yemen attack details in another Signal chat
-
Politics1 week ago
Pope Francis and US presidents: A look back at his legacy with the nation's leaders
-
World1 week ago
New Zealand’s minor gov’t party pushes to define women by biological sex
-
Politics1 week ago
JD Vance has ‘exchange of opinions’ on issues like deportations during meeting with top Vatican official