Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

Scientists link ‘hunger hormone’ to memory in Alzheimer’s study

Scientists at The University of Texas at Dallas have found evidence suggesting that resistance to the “hunger hormone” ghrelin in the brain is linked to the cognitive impairments and memory loss associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
The findings, based on observations of postmortem brain-tissue samples from Alzheimer’s patients and on experiments with a mouse model of AD, also suggest a possible treatment strategy for the incurable neurodegenerative disorder that affects about 5.8 million older adults in the United States.
The research was published Aug. 14 as the cover article in the journal Science Translational Medicine.
“This is a proof-of-concept study, but we are very encouraged by the results,” said Dr. Heng Du, associate professor of biological sciences at UT Dallas and corresponding author of the study.
Produced in the stomach, ghrelin sends signals to the brain that regulate energy balance and body weight. Often called the hunger hormone, it plays a role in appetite and meal initiation. But ghrelin also has been implicated in learning and memory.
The hippocampus region of the brain — crucial to learning, memory and emotions — is one of the first to suffer cell death and damage in Alzheimer’s disease due to a toxic buildup of protein fragments called amyloid beta.
In a healthy hippocampus, ghrelin binds with proteins called ghrelin receptors, which combine with similarly activated receptors for the neurotransmitter dopamine. The two receptors then form a protein complex that helps maintain communication between brain cells and, ultimately, memory.
In the new study, Du and his colleagues found that amyloid beta binds to ghrelin receptors in the hippocampus, blocking their ability to combine with dopamine receptors.
“Our hypothesis is that this dissociation between ghrelin and dopamine receptors may be what is affecting cognition in Alzheimer’s patients,” Du said. “As the brain loses the function of ghrelin receptors due to amyloid beta, the body tries to compensate by increasing the production of ghrelin and the number of ghrelin receptors. But the amyloid prevents the receptors from functioning.”
Du likened the condition to insulin resistance found in individuals with type 2 diabetes. In that disease, insulin receptors malfunction.
“To compensate, patients in the early stages of type 2 diabetes produce more insulin to bind insulin receptors,” Du said. “But they become insulin-resistant. No matter how much insulin your body produces, the insulin receptors are unable to activate the downstream biochemical reactions needed to transport glucose from blood into cells.
“Similarly, based on our findings, Alzheimer’s might be linked to ghrelin resistance.”
Du said the new findings help explain why a recent clinical trial of a compound called MK0677 — designed to activate ghrelin receptors in the brain — proved unable to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s.
To test a different approach in their mouse model of AD, Du’s team gave the mice MK0677 and another compound — SKF81297 to activate dopamine receptors — at the same time.
“When we gave these compounds simultaneously, we saw improved cognition and memory in the AD mice, and lesions in the hippocampus were reduced,” Du said. “Activating both receptors at the same time was key; it restored the receptors’ ability to form complexes. When this happens, we suspect the ghrelin receptor becomes protected and can no longer bind to amyloid beta.
“More research is needed, but targeting this mechanism might prove therapeutically useful.”
Du, who has filed for a patent on the approach, said the team’s findings suggest that Alzheimer’s might be more than just a brain disease.
“As we age, we tend to experience changes in metabolism. These affect the heart and the gastrointestinal system, but maybe they also are affecting the brain by altering the ghrelin receptor,” he said. “We know that even in the absence of dementia, many older people have memory problems, and this could be related to the dissociation between the receptors in the brain, even without the presence of amyloid.
“I’m starting to think of Alzheimer’s as a systemic disorder, and that we should pay more attention to the metabolic and hormonal path of the disease.”
###
Other UT Dallas researchers involved in the study were co-lead authors Jing Tian, doctoral student in molecular and cell biology, and Dr. Lan Guo, research assistant professor of biological sciences; Dr. Sven Kroener, associate professor of behavioral and brain sciences, and his doctoral students Christopher Driskill and Aarron Phensy; Esha Gauba, doctoral student in molecular and cell biology; and visiting scholars Dr. Shaomei Sui and Dr. Qi Wang.
Additional authors include Dr. Jeffrey Zigman, professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center, and Dr. Russell Swerdlow, director of the University of Kansas Alzheimer’s Disease Center and the University of Kansas Medical Center Neurodegenerative Disorders Program.
The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association.

Bellus aims for IPO cash as it squares off with giant Merck on rival drug

Fueled by a successful Phase I trial treating chronic cough and lured by the promise of taking their lead drug to other applications, Montreal-based Bellus Health is looking to make its debut on Nasdaq with a $60 million IPO.
The public offering could be a major boon to the small Canadian company as it looks to outpace pharma giant Merck in the race to bring a P2X3-blocking drug to market. Blocking the P2X3 receptor is a closely studied method for reducing disorders around hypersensitivity, including most prominently chronic cough.
Merck has already brought their version — Gefapixant, or MK-7264 — to Phase III trials for chronic cough treatment, with high hopes in creating a major new franchise program. But Bellus points out in the S-1 filing that in their Phase I trial for BLU-5937 they were able to produce positive results without the taste-altering side effects that have marred Merck’s trials. In Merck’s latest trial, over 70% of patients who received 50 mg experienced taste loss or alteration, compared to 5% of patients in Bellus’s. In July, Bellus began its Phase II trial for chronic cough, which affects 26 million Americans.
No effective treatment currently exists.
Bellus also touts their P2X3 inhibitor as potentially useful against other disorders related to hypersensitivity. In 2020 they will begin a Phase II trial on eczema. The atopic dermatitis field is crowded, but Bellus claims 40-50% of patients are dissatisfied with their treatment.
In June Baird analyst Brian Skorney noted that he viewed BLU-5937 as a differentiated asset, saying it “may over time prove to be the best-in-class P2X3 antagonist.”
Originally called Neurochem, the company was forced to restructure in 2008 after their bid to launch their Alzheimer’s drug failed in a large clinical study. They changed their name and began focusing on orphan drugs, although ALZ-801 was
licensed by Alzheon in 2013.
This will be the second major fundraiser in less than a year for Bellus, as it raised $35 million at $0.95 a share from an equity offering in December.
As of June 30, the company had $42.4 million cash on hand. Bellus hopes to eventually sell BLU-5937 at $300-$600 per patient, per month. Listed in Canada, the company’s shares were trading at $2.04.

DOJ Takes Down ‘Pill Mill’ Network for Millions of Opioid RXs

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has charged 41 people in nine indictments for their alleged involvement in a network of “pill mills” that allegedly resulted in the diversion of roughly 23 million oxycodonehydrocodone, and carisoprodol pills.
Those charged include medical providers, clinic owners and managers, pharmacists, and pharmacy owners and managers, as well as drug dealers and traffickers.
The DOJ “continues to relentlessly pursue criminals, including medical professionals, who peddle opioids for profit,” Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski, from the DOJ’s Criminal Division, said in a statement.
“This type of criminal activity is, in part, what is fueling the 68,500 overdose deaths per year across the United States,” Will Glaspy, special agent in charge of the Houston Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), said in the statement.
“The DEA and our numerous law enforcement partners will not sit silently while drug dealers wearing lab coats conspire with street dealers to flood our communities with over 23 million dangerous and highly addictive pills,” Glaspy said.

Indictments in Texas and Massachusetts

The latest federal opioid enforcement actions were led by the Health Care Fraud Unit (HCF Unit) in the DOJ’s Criminal Division Fraud Section in conjunction with US Attorney’s Offices for the Southern and Eastern Districts of Texas and District of Massachusetts as well as the DEA and task force officers from greater Houston police departments and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The charges allege that participating doctors, medical professionals, and pharmacies knew the prescriptions had no legitimate medical purpose and were outside the usual course of professional practice, the DOJ said.
“They include a Houston-area doctor who, in less than 15 months, allegedly prescribed approximately 2 million pills of controlled substances — including over 800,000 oxycodone pills and almost 450,000 hydrocodone pills,” Benczkowski said August 28 during a Houston press conference.
“They also include the owner and pharmacist-in-charge at a pill mill pharmacy that has, in 2019, allegedly dispensed the second highest amount of oxycodone 30-mg pills of all pharmacies in the entire State of Texas, and the ninth highest amount in the nation. Amazingly, 100% of the oxycodone dispensed by this pharmacy — every single oxycodone pill that left the premises — was in the highest available dosage strength of that drug,” Benczkowski said.
The DOJ also announced that 350 law enforcement agents executed 36 search and seizure warrants in the Southern District of Texas, including 15 pharmacies and six “pill mill” clinics as well as other offices and residences, aimed at disrupting opioid diversion networks. And the DEA issued immediate suspension orders to nine DEA registrants, including seven pharmacies and two doctors, involved in dispensing controlled substances without legitimate medical purpose.
Benczkowski said he has a “message for those doctors, pharmacists, and other medical professionals engaging in this criminal behavior across the state of Texas and elsewhere in America: you may think you are invisible. But the data in our possession allows us to see you and see you clearly, no matter where you are. And if you behave like a drug dealer, we are going to find you, and treat you like a drug dealer.”

Cancer Overtakes Cardiovascular Disease as Lead Cause of Death in Rich Nations

Cancer is now the leading cause of death in high-income countries (HICs), where it is responsible for twice as many deaths as cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to findings from a new global report.
“The world is witnessing a new epidemiologic transition among the different categories of noncommunicable diseases, with CVD no longer the leading cause of death in HIC,” lead author Gilles Dagenais, MD, professor emeritus, Laval University, Quebec, Canada, said in a statement.
However, worldwide, CVD remains the leading cause of mortality.
CVD-related deaths were 2.5 times more common among middle-aged adults in low-income countries (LICs) than in HICs, although there was a substantially lower burden of CVD risk factors in these populations as compared with wealthier countries.
The study authors suggest that the higher CVD-related mortality observed in LICs may primarily be due to a lower quality of healthcare — first hospitalization rates and the use of CVD medication were lower in both LICs and middle-income countries (MICs).
“Our report found cancer to be the second most common cause of death globally in 2017, accounting for 26% of all deaths,” commented Dagenais.
“But as CVD rates continue to fall, cancer could likely become the leading cause of death worldwide within just a few decades,” he added.
The findings come from the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiologic (PURE) study, published online on September 3 in the Lancet.

Cancer Leading Cause in Wealthy Nations

The PURE study included 162,534 individuals aged 35 to 70 years who were living in 21 countries.
The HICs were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates.
The study did not include the United States, but previous research shows that cancer is now the leading cause of death, having surpassed CVD in about half of the states, and it is the leading cause of death in the Hispanic population, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
The MICs were Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia, Iran, Malaysia, Palestine, Philippines, Poland, Turkey, and South Africa.
The LICs were Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe.
Median follow-up was 9.5 years. During that time, 9329 participants (5.7%) had CVD, 5151 (3.2%) had cancer, 4386 (2,7%) sustained injuries requiring hospital admission, 2911 (1.8%) developed pneumonia, and 1830 (1.1%) had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Incident cancers, injuries, COPD, and pneumonia were most common among persons residing in HICs and were least common in LICs. This pattern was seen for breast, lung, colon, prostate, and gynecologic cancers.
The incidence of CVD per 1000 person-years was 7.1 in LICs, 6.8 in MICs, and 4.3 in LICs. Overall mortality rates were twice as high in LICs compared with MICs and were four times higher in LICs compared with HICs.
CVD and cancer were the most common causes of death overall, and there were marked differences by country income levels. In HICs, cancer mortality (1.7 deaths per 1000 person-years) was about 2.5 times more common than death from CVD (0.6 deaths per 1000 person-years). In MICs, it was 2.0 and 1.6 per 1000 person-years. In LICs, the difference was far more pronounced — the rate of deaths from CVD was three times higher than that from cancer (4.2 vs 1.4 deaths per 1000 person-years).
Thus, the ratio of deaths from CVD to those from cancer was 0.4 in HICs, 1.3 in MICs, and 3.0 in LICs.
These findings, note the authors, are consistent with those of the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD), which found that cancer was the leading cause of death among adults aged 50 to 69 years in wealthy countries, whereas CVD was the leading cause of death in lower-income nations.

Modifiable CVD Risk Factors

In the companion article published in the Lancet, researchers investigated the relative contribution (population attributable factor [PAF]) of 14 modifiable risk factors to CVD in the PURE cohort.
The study included 155,722 community-dwelling, middle-aged individuals who did not have a prior history of CVD and who resided in the same 21 HICs, MICs, and LICs as in the PURE study.
Modifiable risk factors accounted for approximately 70% of cases of CVD and related death in the overall population. Metabolic factors were the predominant risk factors for CVD (41.2% of the PAF); of those, hypertensionaccounted for the greatest number (22.3% of the PAF).
Behavioral risk factors contributed to the most deaths (26.3% of the PAF), but the single largest risk factor was a low education level (12.5% of the PAF). Ambient air pollution was associated with 13.9% of the PAF for CVD.
There was a higher proportion of CVD and death in LICs than in MICs. In MICs and LICs, household air pollution, poor diet, low education, and low grip strength had stronger effects on CVD or mortality than in HICs.
Both studies have limitations, the authors caution. Although these are the only studies that have included as many as 21 countries, these results may not be generalizable to all countries.

Opportunities to Prevent Cancer and CVD

In an accompanying editorial directed to the second study on CVD risk factors, Stephanie H. Read, PhD, from Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and Sarah H. Wild, PhD, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, note that the current findings “can inform the effective use of limited resources — for example, by indicating the importance of improving education across the world and improving diet and reducing household air pollution in less developed countries.
“The value of collecting similar data to inform policy in a wider range of countries is clear, while improving lifestyle choices and modifying their social and commercial determinants remain a challenge,” they write.
In reference to the first study, Wild told Medscape Medical News that in HICs, heart disease and its related mortality “are becoming less common partly as a consequence of improvements in treatment, and because we all have to die of something, cancer is beginning to take over from cardiovascular disease as the most common cause of death.
“Cancer obviously comprises a variety of conditions, but some of the common cancers are related to unhealthy lifestyles, and there are clearly opportunities to prevent some cancers and also to improve treatments across the world,” she said.
The study was funded by the Population Health Research Institute, the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (including through the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research via the Ontario SPOR Support Unit), the Heart and Stroke Foundation (Ontario, Canada), the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and by unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies. It received major contributions from AstraZeneca (Canada), Sanofi-Aventis (France and Canada), Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany and Canada), Servier Laboratories, and GlaxoSmithKline, and additional contributions from Novartis, King Pharma, and from several national and local organizations in participating countries. Several of the authors of both studies have disclosed relevant financial relationships, as noted in the original articles.
Lancet. Published online September 3, 2019. PURE study, Abstract; Companion article, AbstractEditorial

Defibrillators Still Save Lives in Heart Failure

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) continue to have a primary prevention survival benefit in the modern era of heart failure treatment but are still underused, a Swedish study suggested.
In the SwedeHF registry, just 10% of 16,702 patients eligible for a device under the European Society of Cardiology criteria for ICD prevention of sudden cardiac death in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) actually got one since 2010.
Benedikt Schrage, MD, of the University Heart Center Hamburg, Germany, reported the results here at the European Society of Cardiology meeting and simultaneously online in Circulation.
“Even if one accounts for patients who may have received an ICD during follow-up and the fact that SwedeHF only includes 54% of patients countrywide, this utilization rate is disappointingly low,” Sana Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, and Fred Kusumoto, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
In a propensity-matched analysis, ICD use was associated with 27% lower all-cause mortality risk at 1 year (12.7% vs 16.9%, P<0.01) and 12% lower such risk at 5 years (47.4% vs 49.5%, P=0.04).
No such difference was seen between groups in risk of hospitalization for renal failure, dialysis, chronic lower respiratory disease, flu and pneumonia, or rheumatoid arthritis as a negative control, which Al-Khatib and Kusumoto said “provides reassurance that worse outcomes in the no-ICD group are not explained by avoidance of ICD implantation in sicker patients.”
These findings affirm the 20% to 30% reduction in mortality seen in the MADIT II and SCD-HeFT trials that inaugurated primary prevention ICD use in heart failure 20 years ago, even though it has been questioned due to the falling sudden cardiac death rate in this population as drug therapy has improved, Schrage and colleagues noted in their paper released Sept. 3.
While the DANISH trial played into that anti-ICD argument by showing no survival benefit of primary prevention ICDs in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy, the editorial noted that DANISH had a large crossover to cardiac resynchronization therapy and enrollment criteria for elevated natriuretic peptides that probably selected patients more likely to die from advanced heart failure than sudden cardiac death.
Results in SwedeHF were consistent across subgroups, including by ischemic heart diseaseetiology, sex, age, period of enrollment, and cardiac resynchronization therapy.
The message now is to get the word out to general practitioners, Schrage said at a press conference for the late-breaking clinical trial.
“I think there is a strong perception of complications of ICD uses and difficulties to implant and maintain the device,” he said. “We knew before that the use of ICDs in Sweden is low and we can only speculate about that, that the perception of complications in the general practitioner’s mind does not outweigh the benefit of ICDs. I think our message now needs to be that communication of [how] ICD use will reduce morality.”
He suggested that the rate of use is higher in the U.S. — about 60% in one registry.
However, Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, of McMaster University’s Population Health Research Institute in Hamilton, Ontario, cautioned that this might not be the best comparison.
“Worldwide, the use of ICDs is under 2%. Sweden is one of the wealthier countries of the world. Now you can say it ought to be higher, but don’t compare anything with the U.S., because U.S. rates are off the chart for anything expensive you can do,” he said from the panel at the press conference. “I don’t think you’re that far off.”
“Whenever you look at rates of use of complex therapies, like ICD, a number of factors have to be taken into account, not just an EF [ejection fraction] in heart failure but what comorbidities do people have, do they have renal failure, are they demented, have they had severe COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. These are all factors clinicians take into account in the decision about using it and then patient preferences,” Yusuf added. “Just simply comparing numbers doesn’t tell you the complete picture.”
The study received funding from Boston Scientific and the EU/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative.
Schrage and the editorialists disclosed no relevant relationships with industry.

Death Certificate Project Accuses 64 Calif. Doctors

The so-called Death Certificate Project initiated by the Medical Board of California that began in 2015 has now resulted in formal accusals of wrongdoing filed against 64 physicians related to their drug prescribing, primarily involving opioids, newly updated records show.
Five of the 64 have surrendered their licenses; six others were put on probation, and eight received public reprimands.
These are out of a total of 469 physicians investigated for excessive prescribing because of patients’ overdose deaths in 2012 or 2013.
Two of the 64 accusations were withdrawn, according to statistics released by the board last week.
The remaining 43 physicans of the 64 accused still await final decisions; half of these have been hanging more than 7 months and five for nearly a year.
Beyond the 64 doctors against whom an accusation had been filed, another 11 of the 469 are still under investigation. It remains to be seen whether a round orange gavel signifying a disciplinary action will mark any of their profile pages.
The agency’s investigators continue to prowl the state Department of Justice’s prescription drug database to identify doctors who prescribed opioids to a patient who, according to a death certificate, fatally overdosed in 2012 or 2013, even as long as three years after that doctor wrote that script, and not necessarily from the same drug the doctor prescribed.
Separate investigations were conducted of 72 nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and osteopathic physicians — who are governed by different state boards — but the results of those were not immediately available.
In the next leg of the investigation, the medical board, which licenses some 140,000 physicians, will scrutinize practices of doctors whose patients fatally overdosed in 2016 and 2017, when presumably far more conservative opioid prescribing had replaced more liberal practices and as the extent of addiction potential and lethality of these drugs was better understood.
‘Witch-hunt’
The project is intended to stop overdoses and save lives. But it has been harshly lambasted by some doctors as a “witch hunt.” It also has disrupted practices by many physicians who — prior to 2014 — were abiding by the now outdated mantra that patients’ pain complaints should be aggressively treated with whatever it takes.
Many representatives of organized physician groups said the project is now hurting patients in pain trying to get relief. Pain specialists’ waiting lists have backed up and increasing numbers of primary care providers refuse to prescribe opioids in fear that years later, a patient death — even by suicide — may put their licenses under public scrutiny as well.
But Kimberly Kirchmeyer, the medical board’s executive director, defended the project. In an e-mailed statement, she said it “is helping the board meet its mission of consumer protection in a proactive way.” She added that her agency “will continue to find ways to improve this process.”
In remarks to the board during its January meeting, Kirchmeyer gave more detail. She said expert reviewers looked for high-dose opioid prescribing patterns that included morphine equivalencies greater than 90 mg, opioids in combination with sedating drugs like benzodiazepines, Soma, sleeping pills, and other unsafe combinations of medications. Additionally, the reviewers zeroed in on doctors who prescribed dangerous drugs frequently, “and other red flags.”
A welcome change?
Perhaps not surprisingly, consumer advocates have applauded the Death Certificate Project for calling out doctors with reckless prescribing habits.
Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, spoke from “the injured patient’s perspective,” saying, “Doctors in this state are accustomed to weak or non-existent regulatory oversight. For patient safety, it’s about time that the medical board started acting to proactively investigate the opioid crisis.”
In many accusations she’s read, dangerous prescribing practices are obvious. “Patients are not getting medical exams. Doctors are not confirming the injuries the patients came forward with. Doctors are prescribing wildly excessive doses of medications. Even to a lay person it seems blatantly obvious that action should have been taken,” Balber said.
Patient safety activist Eric Andrist of Los Angeles, who started the newer Patient Safety League which posts stories about medical harm and patient experiences, travels around the state to every medical board meeting to complain that the agency is too soft, allowing hundreds of dangerous doctors to get off with no more than a slap on the wrist. He said he’s pleasantly surprised the board tackled the opioid issue in the first place.
“They’ve always said that they don’t and won’t look for cases themselves … and only act on complaints brought to them,” he said. Without this initiative, these doctors would never have been punished or called out. He also praised the yield of 19 accusations resulting in disciplinary action to date — even with 43 more to go — because by his count the agency’s average is much lower.
Five licenses surrendered
Among the most egregious cases, those that prompted five physicians to surrender their licenses, departure from the standard of care was especially well documented.
In the longest accusation, a 63-page petition to revoke the license of Frank D. Gilman, MD, of San Diego, the board listed hundreds of prescriptions written for four patients. He prescribed 370 prescriptions for one of them, and of those more than 200 were for oxycodone. Two of his patients died from overdoses. Gilman was accused of gross negligence, repeated negligent acts, incompetence, repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing, and failure to maintain adequate and accurate medical records.
John Winthrop Pierce, MD, of San Francisco, surrendered his license after one of his patients died of an overdose of hydrocodone. The board’s 28-page accusation said that he had prescribed a long-acting combination of fentanyl and morphine for another patient who had exhibited suicide ideation, and overall prescribing behavior that constituted gross negligence and repeated negligent acts.
Robert M. Littman, MD, of San Diego, also surrendered his license after the board’s accusation said that his treatment of a patient, who was found dead at her home from “carisoprodol, lorazepam, oxycodone, zolpidem and trazodone toxicity” with traces of amphetamines and clonazepam, constituted “gross negligence.” The patient had received prescriptions from multiple doctors, and “doctor shopped,” but Littman had failed to conduct toxicology screenings and had not checked the prescription database to see what other prescriptions she had been getting.
Philipp Leo Bannwart, MD, of Zermatt, Switzerland, surrendered his license after the board found fault with his treatment of a patient in Concord, near San Francisco. She died of “acute methadone intoxication.” The board accusation says that Bannwart wrote combination prescriptions for her, including methadone, Percocet, Norco, and promethazine-codeine syrup, constituting what the board called “gross negligence, repeated negligent acts/incompetence/improper prescribing without an appropriate prior examination and medical indication.”
Daniel George Clark, MD, of Auburn, surrendered his license after the agency found that a patient died after Clark increased dosages of fentanyl, which it labeled “gross negligence.”
Probation and public reprimand
Six accused physicians were placed on probation for periods of 3-7 years: Ashmead Ali, MD, of California City; Jay Milton Beams, MD, of Susanville; Harold Budhram, MD, of Shasta Lake; William Lee Matzner, MD, of Simi Valley; Michelle Anne Orengo-McFarlane, MD, of Martinez; and Ilona Sylvester, MD, of Thousand Oaks.
Another eight physicians were formally reprimanded and ordered to take courses on prescribing practices and, in most cases, medical record-keeping: Alyn Gary Anderson, MD, of Huntington Beach; Michael S. Basch, MD, of Temecula; Jose Rosendo Cesena, MD, of El Cajon; Vorakiat Charuvastra, MD, of Los Angeles; Moshe Miller Lewis, MD, of San Francisco; Diana Maria Prince, MD, of Rohnert Park; Charles Yang, MD, of Huntington Beach; and Tahir Yaqub, MD, of Atwater.
Still-pending accusations against the remaining 43 physicians can be read here.
The California Medical Association did not respond to a request for comment about the current status of the Death Certificate Project. But in an interview late last year, David Aizuss, MD, CMA president and an ophthalmologist from Encino, criticized the board for going after doctors because of how they prescribed controlled substances before 2014. “I don’t think it’s appropriate to apply our current clinical guidelines to what was going on six or seven years ago,” he said then.
Asked why the investigations take so long, medical board spokesman Carlos Villatoro replied that for the latest fiscal year ending June 30, 2018, it took an average of 322 days after an accusation was filed for the case to conclude without compromising due process. He added that the process involves the Attorney General’s office and the office of administrative hearings, both of which are outside the board’s control, he said.

Orphan Drug Tag to Puma Bio Med for Breast Cancer with Brain Metastases

Puma Biotechnology, Inc. (Nasdaq: PBYI) announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted Orphan Drug Designation to NERLYNX® (neratinib) for the treatment of breast cancer patients with brain metastases.
“Receiving Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA signifies our continued progress and commitment to developing treatments for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer,” said Alan H. Auerbach, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Puma. “Despite expanded treatment options for HER2-positive breast cancer, brain metastases in these patients represent a significant clinical challenge, as well as sources of morbidity and mortality for most of these patients. The blood-tumor penetrability of NERLYNX represents a potential treatment option for these underserved patients.”
The FDA Orphan Drug Designation program grants orphan designation to investigational drugs designed to treat, prevent, or diagnose rare medical diseases or conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. Orphan designation qualifies sponsors for several key benefits and incentives, including opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax credits, user fee waivers, and the potential for a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity upon FDA approval of the investigational drug for the indication for which it has orphan designation.