Valeant price target raised to $20 from $17 at BMO Capital. BMO Capital analyst Gary Nachman raised his price target on Valeant to $20, saying the company’s “impressive” Q1 results demonstrate “good returns” on some of its strategic investments. Nachman also raised his FY18 EPS target to $3.42 from $3.12 to reflect the company’s raised FY18 guidance. The analyst keeps his Market Perform rating amid continued uncertainty about sustainability of certain revenue drivers and potential contribution from its “key new product launches”.
Monday, May 14, 2018
Boston Scientific ’60 Minutes’ report called ‘likely overstated’ by Stifel
Boston Scientific mesh issues likely overstated by 60 Minutes, says Stifel. Stifel analyst Rick Wise commented on the “60 Minutes” story regarding Boston Scientific transvaginal mesh products and associated lawsuits, calling the report “unsettling…but likely overstated.” He notes that the company has reached or is near settlement on 47,500 of the known 49,500 mesh legal claims, has a $1.5B legal reserve for the matter and has said it expects the majority of the remaining mesh claims to be resolved in 2018. Wise keeps a Buy rating and $33 price target on Boston Scientific shares
Sunday, May 13, 2018
Could vitamin D help to fight diabetes?
Boosting vitamin D’s activity might, eventually, help to battle diabetes.
Currently, there are around 30 million people in the United States living with type 2 diabetes, a lifelong condition that cannot yet be cured.
Obesity, one of the major risk factors, is steadily rising, meaning that the number of people with type 2 diabetes is likely to follow suit.
The condition is caused by faulty beta cells in the pancreas. These cells manufacture and release insulin, the hormone essential for controlling glucose levels in the blood.
If beta cells produce too little insulin, or none at all, glucose can accumulate in the blood at levels that are toxic to cells and tissues.
A recent study, now published in the journal Cell, looked into a novel way of protecting beta cells, thereby slowing the onset of diabetes. The researchers, from the Salk Institute in La Jolla, CA, concentrated on a well-known compound: vitamin D.
Vitamin D and diabetes
Vitamin D is often referred to as the sunshine vitamin because it is created in our skin in response to direct sunlight. Previous studies have found a connection between low vitamin D levels and a higher risk of diabetes, but the mechanisms involved have been challenging to unravel.
This is due, in part, to the wide-reaching physiological functions of vitamin D; for instance, vitamin D is involved in cell growth, bone maintenance, neuromuscular activity, and the immune system. Also, importantly for this study, it has been implicated in inflammation.
“We know that diabetes is a disease caused by inflammation. In this study, we identified the vitamin D receptor as an important modulator of both inflammation and beta cell survival.”Senior study author Ronald Evans
To reach these conclusions, the researchers created beta cells using embryonic stem cells. Then, they tested a battery of compounds to investigate what effects they had on them.
Boosting vitamin D in beta cells
The researchers found that a particular compound — called iBRD9 — boosted the activity of vitamin D receptors when they were bound to vitamin D molecules. This had a protective effect on the beta cells.
They demonstrated that, in a mouse model of diabetes, iBRD9 brought glucose levels back down into the normal range.
“This study started out by looking at the role of vitamin D in beta cells,” says first study author Zong Wei. “Epidemiological studies in patients,” he reports, “have suggested a correlation between high vitamin D concentrations in the blood and a lower risk of diabetes, but the underlying mechanism was not well understood.”
He continues, “It’s been hard to protect beta cells with the vitamin alone. We now have some ideas about how we might be able to take advantage of this connection.”
They identified a way in which vitamin D might protect beta cells. It seems to involve transcription, or how genes are decoded to produce proteins. The introduction of iBRD9 caused genes with a protective effect to be transcribed at higher rates, protecting the beta cells.
“Activating the vitamin D receptor,” notes co-corresponding study author Michael Downes, “can trigger the anti-inflammatory function of genes to help cells survive under stressed conditions.”
“By using a screening system that we developed in the lab, we’ve been able to identify an important piece of that puzzle that allows for super-activation of the vitamin D pathway.”Michael Downes
While the findings have clear implications for scientists trying to design new drugs to treat diabetes, there are further-reaching possibilities.
As study co-author Ruth Yu explains, “[B]ecause this is an important receptor, it could potentially be universal for any treatments where you need to boost the effect of vitamin D. For example, we are especially interested in looking at it in pancreatic cancer.”
Of course, before any drug can be used in humans, there are many essential hoops to be jumped through. Although there were no notable side effects in mice, only time will tell if it is safe for humans, too.
Reversing atherosclerosis with one shot
A new study suggests that an injection might be able to reduce arterial plaque (depicted here).
Atherosclerosis is a condition in which plaque builds inside the arteries, stiffening and eventually clogging them.
Plaque is a waxy substance that’s made of cholesterol, fat, fragments of cellular waste, calcium, and fibrin, an insoluble protein that helps the blood to clot.
As plaque gradually builds up inside the arteries, it causes the vessels to lose their elasticity, which makes them less efficient at pumping blood.
It also makes the walls inside the arteries thicker, which limits the flow of oxygen to the cells. Over time, plaque can lead to blood clots, or parts of it can detach and block the arteries.
For these reasons, atherosclerosis may lead to coronary heart disease, angina, peripheral artery disease, or chronic kidney disease, among other conditions.
Current therapies for atherosclerosis include the use of statins, which help to regulate cholesterol levels. However, these drugs only help to keep the condition in check; they don’t reverse it.
New research, however, shows that one day, reversing this condition could be possible. Dr. Neel A. Mansukhani — an integrated vascular surgery fellow at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, IL — led a study in which synthetically created nanofibers were used in a mouse model of atherosclerosis.
The injection successfully targeted the buildup of cholesterol and led to the breaking up of plaque. The findings were presented at the American Heart Association’s conference Vascular Discovery: From Genes to Medicine Scientific Sessions 2018, held in San Francisco, CA.
Treatment lowers plaque by up to 11 percent
Dr. Mansukhani explains how the researchers decided to design very small fibers that contained cholesterol-removing particles. “Our aim,” he says, “was to develop a non-invasive, non-surgical, novel therapy to halt and reverse the disease by actually targeting the vessel wall with peptide-based nanofibers developed in the laboratory.”
Advanced Lung Cancer – For Healthcare Professionals
View a category 1 recommended option for first-line advanced lung cancer.
The authors explain that the small fibers contain a key amino acid sequence that melts down the cholesterol.
To test the newly designed substance, Dr. Mansukhani and team genetically engineered mice to have atherosclerosis. Then, they placed the mice on a high-fat diet for 14 weeks.
After the 14 weeks, some of the rodents were injected with the nanofibers and some with saline water biweekly for 8 weeks.
“[F]irst we wanted to confirm that the therapy actually targeted areas of atherosclerosis,” says Dr. Mansukhani. To this end, he and his team used imaging techniques to trace the effect of the therapeutic substance in the rodents’ bodies.
The effects were noticeable after 24 hours, lasted up to 72 hours, and were completely gone in 7–10 days.
Overall, at the end of the 8-week treatment period, the plaque in the male mice decreased by 11 percent, and that in the females dropped by 9 percent.
“[The results] demonstrate that a novel targeted nanofiber binds specifically to atherosclerotic lesions and reduces plaque burden after a short treatment duration.”Dr. Neel A. Mansukhani
Despite these promising results, the authors caution that the findings are just preliminary, and that more tests are required before the innovative method can be trialed in humans.
How to Treat a Bee Sting
Bee sting is a type of injury caused by bee venom that induces toxic reactions at the site of sting. It is manifested as pain, redness, and swelling of the affected area. These symptoms generally subside within a day. However, if a person is allergic to bee venom or gets multiple bee stings, a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) may occur, which is often life-threatening.
Image Credit: PhilMacDPhoto / Shutterstock
Typical signs and symptoms of such reactions include:
- Breathing difficulties
- Swelling of the throat and tongue
- Feeble and rapid heart rate
- Dizziness
- Nausea and vomiting
- Diarrhea
- Loss of consciousness
- Fever and headache
- Convulsion
If a person is suspected to have bee venom allergy, a medical examination is indicated to confirm it. Laboratory tests that are routinely used to diagnose bee venom allergy include:
- Skin prick test – also called skin puncture test, is used to examine immediate allergic reactions to suspected allergens.
- Intradermal test – is used to examine the sensitivity of a person to suspected allergens. It involves injecting a small amount of suspected allergen into the skin and examining if there is any allergic reaction.
- Serum specific antibody measurement – involves testing blood samples for either total immunoglobulin E or allergen-specific immunoglobulin E. Immunoglobulin E is an antibody involved in classic allergic reactions. The level of this antibody in the blood directly measures the intensity of allergic reaction to a specific allergen.
Treating a Bee Sting
A bee sting that does not induce an allergic reaction generally goes away with simple home remedies. However, emergency medical attention is needed if the sting causes a severe allergic reaction.
For a person with a history of severe bee venom allergy, some preventive measures are suggested:
For a person with a history of severe bee venom allergy, some preventive measures are suggested:
- Regular immunotherapy in the form of allergic shots for a few years to reduce or eliminate the allergy by building up protective antibodies
- Keeping an emergency epinephrine auto-injector handy about one’s person always, to deal instantly with allergies arising from a bee sting
Remedies for severe allergic reactions include the following:
- If a bee sting causes an anaphylactic attack, immediately seek medical attention
- If the affected person stops breathing or his/her heart stops functioning, cardiopulmonary resuscitation must be administered until medical care is available
- Oxygen may also be given to make the breathing easier
Medications that are prescribed by the healthcare professional to treat severe allergy include:
- Epinephrine to reduce the intensity of allergic reaction
- Intravenous antihistamine and cortisone to prevent airway inflammation
- Beta agonist to reduce breathing difficulties
Remedies for minor local reactions include:
- Removal the stinger as soon as possible
- Washing of the affected area with soap and water
- Application of cold compresses to the stung area
Remedies for more widespread local reactions include:
- Removal of the stinger as soon as possible
- Washing the affected area with soap and water
- Application of a cold compress to the sting area
- If pain persists, over-the-counter pain killers may be taken
- To prevent reddening of the skin, itching, or swelling, hydrocortisone cream or calamine lotion may be applied
- If itching or swelling persists, oral antihistamine medicines are appropriate
- To prevent the risk of infection, the sting area should not be scratched
Reviewed by Liji Thomas
Sources
Weighty issues on dog food safety
People are becoming more aware of what they put into their mouths and shifting from processed foods to natural and home-made foods. As for themselves they are more inclined to give their pet dogs these natural foods as well and are leaning towards a “raw meat” diet. These are often combined with pre-prepared foods that can be easily frozen and reheated for convenience.
There is a new study that raises concerns over these raw meat based diets for dogs warning against parasitic and bacterial infections that could be acquired from these foods. The researchers state that there is little evidence that these raw meat based diets are better than processed dog foods. There are concerns about the adequacy of nutrition provided by these foods and diets compared to traditional processed diets. They explain that these domesticated dogs have evolved from their wild ancestors and so have their digestion. While earlier their digestive systems could survive of discarded foods and wastes from human settlements, these modern human companions cannot. Homemade foods, scraps off the table, as well as raw meat, were good and healthy enough for dogs then. Now however pet foods are made in specific manner to include the nutrients that the dog needs for growth and health.
In a recent study that appeared in the journal Veterinary Record, where the team of researchers looked at 35 samples of frozen raw meat products from eight different brands. Among these they noted bacteria such as E. coli in 28 samples, Listeria monocytogenes in 19 samples and Salmonella species in seven samples. They also noted parasites among several samples that were tested. There have been reports of similar kind when samples were analyzed in other countries such as Canada and New Zealand and in North America.
Researchers add that there are no studies that compare the safety of these brands with raw meat from the butchers. They noted that while many of these bacteria cannot cause illness or infection in the dogs that consume them, the dogs can act as carriers of these bacteria and pass them on to their human companions. They add that these bacteria that are found in the food samples are often resistant to traditional antibiotics. This can be a significant worry both for the pets as well as for the human companions of the pets. These infections would be difficult to treat they explain.
The experts warn that same standards of storage and safety as is observed for human foods need to be observed for pet foods. This includes washing hands and surfaces on which food is prepared and served thoroughly and freeze and store foods correctly. Foods should be separately stored and prepared to avoid cross contamination. All frozen foods should be defrosted within the fridge at the lower shelves they add. Pet food plates and bowls too need special care. These precautions would help prevent infections among the pets and in turn prevent their spread to the humans. Bacteria and parasites can also spread via toys, floor and surfaces.
Finding out too late that you have cancer — thanks to ObamaCare
Beware: Many breast- and prostate-cancer patients are getting diagnosed late in the game because of ObamaCare’s skimpy cancer-screening regulations.
Remember when President Barack Obama repeatedly told Americans that greedy doctors were over-testing and over-treating them, and federal rules were needed to stop it? Now the evidence is in: Some of those rules are killing us.
Inadequate cancer screening is forcing women to undergo mastectomies and men to endure aggressive treatments with side effects. Many could have avoided these outcomes, as well as an increased risk of death, if they’d been diagnosed earlier.
Last Friday, Dr. Elisa Port, chief of breast surgery at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, presented compelling evidence at the American Society of Breast Surgeons’ annual meeting about the harm done to women because of the Obama administration’s stingy approach to screening.
Starting in the 1980s, American women age 40 and over were advised to get annual mammograms. The result: Women diagnosed with breast cancer had smaller, more treatable tumors after annual mammograms became the standard of care. But in 2009, under Obama, the United States Preventative Services Task Force declared women were getting too many mammograms. The USPSTF changed the recommendation from yearly starting at age 40 to once every two years starting at age 50.
Worse, the Affordable Care Act gave that task force new clout, mandating that insurance companies pay for tests it recommends with no out-of-pocket costs. Not so for other tests. Millions of women were suddenly misled into thinking the USPSTF’s meager new screening schedule was enough. Now the dire consequences are emerging.
Port’s blockbuster study showed that women who hadn’t had yearly mammograms were diagnosed with later-stage cancer, more apt to have the disease in their lymph nodes and likelier to need mastectomies and chemotherapy than women who got yearly screenings. Port emphasized that her findings apply to women in their 40s too. She urged them to get screened yearly.
Men got bad news from another blockbuster study just published in the Journal of Urology showing the harm done to prostate-cancer patients by ObamaCare and the Preventative Services Task Force. Almost 30 years ago, widespread use of a simple blood test — the PSA (prostate specific antigen) test — reduced the death rate from prostate cancer and the likelihood the cancer had metastasized to other parts of the body.
PSA testing allowed cancer to be caught early. But in 2012, despite an outcry from urologists, the task force announced that men should no longer routinely get the test.
Now, the latest prostate-cancer research shows the alarming results. In the years since the USPSTF’s edict, men are being diagnosed when the disease is at a later stage and harder to treat. Medical progress is being reversed.
Even before these headline-grabbing studies, evidence was mounting that the USPSTF’s screening recommendations were harming patients. Last year, research in the Annals of Internal Medicine showed that PSA tests reduce prostate-cancer deaths by almost one-third.
“This is a screening test that saves lives,” said lead author Ruth Etzioni, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Better late than never, the feds backed off their misguided opposition to PSA testing and urged men to consult their own doctors.
Defenders of the skimpy cancer-screening rules insist aggressive testing produces too many false positives, exposing patients to needless anxiety as they wait for a second test or even undergo a biopsy. For every life saved with the PSA test, about five other men will be told they have abnormal cells and be put through the wringer before getting cleared.
But let’s get real. Enduring a false positive, even if it means having to undergo a second test or a biopsy, pales beside being told you have an untreatable cancer that was diagnosed too late, and you should say goodbye to your family.
Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)