Search This Blog

Friday, August 31, 2018

ADHD: We Finally Know Which Drugs to Use


Hello. I’m Dr Charles Vega, and I am a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California at Irvine. Welcome to Medscape Morning Report, our 1-minute news story for primary care.
A new systematic review and meta-analysis based on 133 double-blind, randomized controlled trials has concluded that methylphenidate is the best first-line medication choice for the treatment of ADHD in kids and teens.
In what researchers call the most comprehensive comparison to date of seven common oral medications for ADHD, all treatment options were more effective than placebo in the short term in children and adolescents. Methylphenidate was only slightly less effective than amphetamines in this group but much better tolerated. In contrast, amphetamines were more effective and better tolerated in adults.
This conclusion comes with some important caveats. Outcomes beyond 12 weeks were not assessed in many of the trials, so no conclusions can be drawn about the long-term effects of these drugs. There was significant heterogeneity between studies, but the researchers found that the comparison between methylphenidate and amphetamine was at least of moderate quality.
The principal conclusion of this research is that methylphenidate offers advantages in the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents, while amphetamines may be considered superior to treat ADHD in adults. This general guideline should not outweigh shared decision-making with the individual patient.

Big Data Confirm Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Approach


When added to metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sulfonylureas reduce hemoglobin A1c to a similar degree, but other differences may favor the former, new research suggests.
The findings, derived from a novel approach that analyzed real-world data from more than 246 million patients, were published online August 24 in JAMA Open, by Rohit Vashisht, PhD, from the Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, and colleagues with the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics in New York City.
None of the drugs raised the risk for kidney disorders, according to the analysis, which examined the effects of sulfonylureas, DPP-4 inhibitors, and thiazolidinediones added to metformin.
However, sulfonylureas were associated with a small increased risk for myocardial infarction and eye disorders compared with DPP-4 inhibitors.
“Large-scale characterization of the effectiveness of type 2 diabetes therapy via an open collaborative research network suggests DPP-4 inhibitors over sulfonylureas in patients with diabetes for whom metformin was the first-line treatment,” principal investigator Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, also from the Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, told Medscape Medical News.
Asked to comment, M. Sue Kirkman, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of the Diabetes Care Center Clinical Trials Unit at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, noted, “For clinicians, this study supports prior thinking that most oral agents lower HbA1c about the same amount on average. The concerns about sulfonylureas being associated with cardiovascular disease are again raised.”
Kirkman added, “For now, clinicians need to continue to individualize therapy beyond metformin, taking into account outcomes of importance to patients, such as cost, side effects, hypoglycemia, and weight gain, and incorporating what we know from cardiovascular outcome trials for patients with known cardiovascular disease.”

Novel Approach Allows for Examination of Heterogeneous Data

For the study, the authors used patient data from eight healthcare systems in three countries. To allow incorporation into a single dataset and subsequent analysis, they standardized the data with regard to terminology and structure using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM).
Shah said that the platform allows for large datasets to inform clinical decision-making. “This study is an example of a large multinational open collaborative research network, which can produce evidence at scale and is made feasible via the adoption of a common data model and open-source analytical tools.”
The platform is being used in many areas of medicine, including assessment of treatments for hypertension, fracture prevention, and thyroid conditions.
Kirkman commented, “Since we cannot do randomized controlled trials to answer every question regarding medical therapy of type 2 diabetes, this type of observational big data analysis is very important. However, concerns about unmeasured confounders are always present.”
For example, she said, “In the United States, sulfonylureas are often prescribed for patients with limited financial means, so I am always concerned that the sulfonylurea findings in nonrandomized trials may be confounded by socioeconomic status.”
She also notes that although the data sources included one from France and another from South Korea, the majority of patients were American.
The sources used were Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters; Columbia University Medical Center; IQVIA Disease Analyzer (France); Truven MarketScan Medicare; Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine; Optum Clinformatics Data Mart; Ajou University School of Medicine (South Korea); and Stanford University.
Specific combinations of drugs, diagnostic codes, and laboratory test results from those records were used to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who had received a second-line treatment in addition to metformin.
Only sulfonylureas, DPP-4 inhibitors, and thiazolidinediones were examined because not enough patients had been prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists at some of the sites. In addition, the authors excluded sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors because “some of the collaborators on this open science project were not allowed to work on those drugs given their employment regulations,” Shah said.
Kirkman called those omissions “unfortunate…since both classes have been shown to provide cardiovascular benefit in high-risk individuals.”
From the Optum dataset, one-to-one propensity matching based on pretreatment drug prescriptions, disease diagnosis, procedure, and demographics yielded 24,777 participants in each drug treatment group. Although the uncalibrated value suggested that HbA1c reduction was greater with sulfonylureas, after calibration of the P value using negative controls, the difference was nonsignificant (P = .81).
In a meta-analysis across all datasets comprising 246,558,805 patients, there was no significant difference between sulfonylureas versus DPP-4 inhibitors in HbA1c reduction to 7% or less (consensus hazard ratio [HR], 0.99).
There was a small increased risk for myocardial infarction and eye disorders for sulfonylureas compared with DPP-4 inhibitors (HR, 1.12 and 1.15, respectively) in the meta-analysis, although the calibrated P values showed that the associations were not significant at individual sites. No differences were seen regarding kidney disorders (consensus HR, 1.09).
Comparisons of sulfonylureas and DPP-4 inhibitors versus thiazolidinediones showed no differences in achievement of HbA1c levels of 7% or less, myocardial infarction, kidney disorders, or eye disorders, either after P value recalibration or in the meta-analysis.
Kirkman said the ongoing National Institutes of Health-funded Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes (GRADE) study is designed to address a similar question. It is a large randomized trial comparing the addition one of four drug classes — sulfonylureas, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, or basal insulin — to metformin, in patients with a broad age range and significant racial diversity. Results, expected in 2021, should help answer the second-line drug question in terms of HbA1c reduction, she said, although the study isn’t powered to examine differences in long-term complications.
The study was supported by grants from the National Library of Medicine and National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Additional support is listed in the article. Co-authors reported receiving consulting fees or honoraria, serving as an advisor, or holding equity in Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Hoffman-La Roche, LAM Therapeutics, NuMedii, Ayasdi, and Ontomics, Hebta, Melax Technologies, and More Health. Two co-authors are employees of Janssen Research and Development. Kirkman’s institution has received research support from Novo Nordisk and Theracos for studies of type 2 diabetes medications.
JAMA Network Open. 2018;1:e181755. Full text

New Equation Bests BMI at Estimating Body Fat Mass


A new relative fat mass (RFM) equation based on height-to-waist-circumference ratio better predicts the percentage of whole-body fat in men and women than body mass index (BMI), new research indicates. The RFM equation also resulted in fewer instances of misclassification for obesity categories in both sexes and in all ethnic groups tested.
“BMI is widely used to assess body fatness, despite its limited accuracy to estimate body fat percentage…Thus, simple and low-cost alternatives to BMI with better diagnostic accuracy for obesity in both sexes would be of considerable importance,” write Orison Woolcott, MD, and Richard Bergman, MD, both with the Sports Spectacular Diabetes and Obesity Wellness and Research Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California.
“In the population studied, the suggested RFM was more accurate than BMI to estimate whole-body fat percentage among women and men and improved body fat-defined obesity misclassification among American adult individuals of Mexican, European, or African ethnicity,” they report. The study was published online July 20 in Scientific Reports.  
However, obesity expert Lee Kaplan, MD, PhD, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston told Medscape Medical News that although the RFM estimate of body fat mass might prove helpful as a research tool, he doubts it will be more useful than BMI in real-life clinical practice.
He notes that although BMI is used to identify patients who are obese, clinicians should consider what the effect of excess weight is on a patient’s health — and the RFM measure, like BMI, doesn’t do that.
“As a clinician what you really want to know is, ‘What is the clinical impact of the obesity?’ That’s what you care about,” Kaplan elaborated. The question then becomes, Is a higher RFM associated with worse outcomes? This is the same question physicians need to answer if they use BMI to guide clinical decision-making.
“The fact that RFM is more consistent [in predicting whole-body fat percentage] than BMI in men and women is interesting, but not necessarily all that clinically important,” Kaplan reiterated.

NHANES Surveys

To develop and validate RFM, the authors used two sets of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). They used the NHANES survey conducted between 1999 to 2004 for model development. Percentages of whole-body fat were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in both models. They considered over 350 anthropometric measures in order to arrive at a simple, anthropometric linear equation more accurate than standard BMI for estimating the percentage of whole-body fat in men and women of a variety of ethnic groups.
“Height/waist equation, named as the relative fat mass, was the final model selected because of its simplicity (it requires only two common anthropometrics), it was superior to BMI in predicting body fat percentage among men, had similar predicting ability relative to BMI among women, and had overall better performance than BMI among women and men, independently,” Woolcott and Bergman write.

‘Death Certificate Project’ Terrifies California Doctors


Brian Lenzkes, MD, got a letter last December from the Medical Board of California that left him shocked and scared.
The licensing agency told him it had received a “complaint filed against you” regarding a patient who died of a prescription overdose in May 2013 — four and a half years earlier.
In stern bold type, the letter’s second paragraph said the man “died from an overdose of hydrocodone, oxycodone, and zolpidem.” The state’s prescription drug database, CURES (California Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System), showed that “Dr. Brian J. Lenzkes had been prescribing long-term excessive amounts of these, including benzos,” and that “it is unknown what conditions the patient suffered from which required such medication.”
The San Diego internist told MedPage Today he’d tried since 2006 to help this complex patient manage pain related to his many problems — so severe they at one point caused him to be admitted to hospice – including diabetic ulcers, congestive heart failure, severe neuropathy, bone infections, and a below-knee amputation, to name a few, he said.
He’d tapered dosages, changed drugs, and tried many other approaches. Though the patient was challenging, he’d “experienced a strong bond” with him, and “he would often bring me homemade barbecue sauce as a thank-you.”
He knew of no complaints about his care of this man. Lenzkes said the patient’s friend told him the man “would have died years earlier if it were not for my encouragement and support.”
If the medical board was after his license, well, the term “witch hunt” crossed Lenzkes’ mind. “I don’t prescribe inappropriately,” he said.
In fact, no patient or family member had filed a complaint against him.
Hundreds threatened
Rather, Lenzkes is one of hundreds of California physicians caught up so far in the medical board’s aggressive “Death Certificate Project,” a program that attempts to stop the epidemic of accidental deaths from prescription opioid overdoses.
The California project takes death certificates in which prescription opioids are listed as a cause, then matches each with the provider — sometimes more than one — who prescribed any controlled substance to that patient within 3 years of death, regardless of whether the particular drug caused the death or whether that doctor prescribed the lethal dose.
At the project’s launch in late 2015, board staff began reviewing 2,694 certificates of death filed in 2012 and 2013 and found 2,256 matches in CURES, showing each provider who wrote an opioid prescription filled by those deceased patients.
Those reports went to medical peer reviewers who, after extensive review, selected 522 prescribers as warranting an investigation of the patients’ files. They included including 450 allopathic physicians against whom the board has opened formal complaints along with 12 osteopathic physicians and 60 nurse practitioners or physician assistants, who were referred to their respective licensing boards. Of the 12 osteopath referrals, seven were closed for insufficient evidence; the other five remain open for investigation.
Of the nearly 450 MDs like Lenzkes who received letters notifying them of a “complaint,” the state Attorney General has filed opioid-related prescribing accusations against nine physicians, Kirchmeyer said. Four of those nine already faced possible disciplinary action on unrelated charges, and saw their accusations amended with new charges regarding opioid prescribing.
For one physician, the accusation referenced deaths of three patients under his care.
The board said 216 cases involving those 450 MDs have now been closed for insufficient evidence or no violation, or the license had already been revoked or surrendered, or the physician had died. As of last week, 38 still await further review of their cases before proceeding; the rest await completion of an investigation.
“Our goal is consumer protection,” the board’s executive director Kimberly Kirchmeyer told MedPage Today. The board wants to “identify physicians who may be inappropriately prescribing to patients and to make sure that those individuals are educated (about opioid guidelines), and where there are violations of the Medical Practices Act, the board takes (disciplinary) action.”
Addressing her board during its quarterly meeting a year ago, Kirchmeyer described the project as an “invaluable” and proactive way to prevent future opioid overdoses by revealing overprescribers — “rather than have to wait for specific complaints to come in,” which are few and far between.
Coroners are required by law to report pathologist findings indicating a death was due to a physician’s gross negligence or incompetence, but the board had received only nine such reports in the prior 2 years, she said.
The board’s project is using death certificates and the CURES database to go beyond the individual fatality and examine a physician’s overall prescribing practices, Kirchmeyer said.
In some cases, investigations triggered by a death certificate identified other, living patients for whom that provider had possibly inappropriately prescribed, she said. That has resulted in a different letter sent directly to such patients saying that the board “is reviewing the quality of care provided to you by Dr. — ” and asking the patient to promptly authorize the doctor to turn over that patient’s medical records to the board. It also threatens to subpoena the records if the patient refuses.
Asked to address physicians’ concerns that these letters could erode patients’ confidence in their doctors, Kirchmeyer reiterated the goal to improve patient safety and said it only sends such letters to patients after a medical consultant “indicated that a physician may be inappropriately prescribing.”
It’s unclear to what extent other states may be targeting putative overprescribers in this way. A California board spokesman said their program was unique, but North Carolina’s medical board also initiates investigations based on patient fatalities involving opioids.
Specifically, North Carolina’s Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative probes clinicians who’ve had at least two opioid-related patient deaths in the preceding 12 months and who prescribed at least 30 tablets within 60 days of the patient’s death, or when licensees have large numbers of patients on 100 milligrams of morphine equivalents (MME) per patient per day.
Letter ‘changed my practice’
On that December day, Lenzkes gathered his patient’s thick file and spent the next nights carefully writing six pages of the summary the board expected from him. Finally, nearly 3 months later, board analyst Erika Calderon exonerated him with a terse letter saying the review was complete: “No further action is anticipated and the file has been closed.”
Lenzkes was lucky. He’d kept good notes and was cleared. But, he said, “it changed my practice of medicine.” From now on, he’s referring patients like that one to pain specialists. “I’m not taking any more. That’s just how I feel.”
One physician who knows others who received these letters described it as “terrifying.” A typical response is to immediately contact an attorney and the malpractice insurance carrier.
Many doctors interviewed who received these letters say it has riddled their lives with stress and self-doubt, and then anger when they wait as long as 9 months, or longer, to hear they’ve been cleared.
Ako Jacintho, MD, a family medicine physician and addiction medicine specialist in San Francisco got a similar letter Dec. 11 about his patient who died on March 21, 2012, from “acute combined methadone and diphenhydramine intoxication.” He’d refilled the patient’s prescription for methadone 10 mg the day before, Jacintho said, but never prescribed diphenhydramine, the antihistamine sold as Benadryl.
“Back when my patient died, there was little warning on the dangers of prescribed opioids, and the Medical Board supported the treatment of intractable pain with prescription narcotics…. pharmaceutical companies said prescribed opioids were safe,” Jacintho said. “Methadone was in vogue for treating pain.”
He’s been waiting to hear back now going on 9 months of silence, despite several requests for a determination. It’s caused him loss of sleep and made it difficult for him to focus.
“I feel like I’ve been shamed,” Jacintho said. He started advising physician colleagues to stop prescribing opioids as he considered getting out of medicine altogether. He also hired an attorney.
“If they can’t see that this was me as a physician doing the best job that I could to help this patient with intractable pain, what am I supposed to do?” he asked.
Physician flight
“You can’t even begin to understand how disruptive and upsetting this is,” said Paul Speckart, MD, another San Diego internist who in March received a similar board letter about his patient who died in late 2012. The cause, Calderon’s letter said, in boldface type, was “carisoprodol, lorazepam, oxycodone, zolpidem and trazodone toxicity. Coronary artery atherosclerosis was the only medical condition noted…. Three providers prescribed heavily to this patient and one of them was noted to have been you.”
Speckart’s eight-page response went back to 1998 in which he documented his many refusals to give the patient scheduled drugs and his efforts to refer her to a pain specialist. In July, Calderon wrote Speckart “there was no problem” with his treatment of that patient, but “your overall pattern of prescribing opioids looks excessive.” He was told to read the guidelines issued by the board in 2014 and the CDC in 2016 and on prescribing controlled substances for pain, which he did.
He does not overly prescribe, he said. The few for whom he does prescribe opioids genuinely need pain relief for their multiple conditions.
As chair of a San Diego County Medical Society’s Emergency Medicine Oversight Commission, emergency room doctor Roneet Lev, MD, heard the physicians’ outcries. “We’ve definitely heard physicians say, ‘I’m done. I’m not going to see these patients; I don’t need this headache.’ And that’s left California without the doctors we need to treat these patients,” Lev said.
Her own study, published earlier this month in the journal Science, tested a gentler approach — a letter directly from the San Diego County medical examiner notifying physicians that a patient they treated died of an opioid overdose, rapidly informing them what happened to their patients. It served as an informed warning, unlike the medical board’s implied threat of disciplinary action.
Lev’s study found that within 3 months of receiving those letters, those physicians prescribed nearly 10% fewer opioid drugs compared with physicians in a control group who were not sent a medical examiner’s letter.
She said the medical board’s approach is “alarming” for several reasons. For starters, most physicians did not have easy access to the CURES database before 2014 to see what other drugs their patients had been prescribed by other providers, a concern since most patients who overdosed did not do so on one drug alone. Mandatory reporting for the system does not start until Oct. 1, 2018.
Second, at the time, there was no uniform standard on the total morphine equivalent dosage doctors should be prescribing, or how much is too much had been in dispute.
Third, the medical board’s approach is simply unrealistic, she said. “You have to remember, there’s still thousands of Americans who are on high-dose opioids, and you can’t just cut them off. They need to be weaned. Our job is to taper them to be safe.”
Lev said she reached out to Ted Mazer, MD, California Medical Association president, and Kelly Pfeifer, director of the California Health Care Foundation’s High-Value Care staff. She hoped to persuade the board to restructure the Death Certificate Project as an educational tool. Otherwise they worry that physicians will fear disciplinary action so much they feel they must hire lawyers, decide to stop taking patients, or refuse to prescribe pain relief.
The California Academy of Family Physicians declined to comment on the board’s project when approached by MedPage Today, but its web page sternly advises doctors to protect themselves by consulting and retaining an attorney “immediately upon contact” from the board regarding a patient who overdosed. “At no point during an investigation should a family physician be without legal counsel,” the organization said.
The California Medical Association’s associate director, Charlie Lawlor, said his group “remains committed to our continued work on effective policies that increase access to proven treatments for patients with addiction and dependency,” but is still reviewing the board’s program and wouldn’t comment on the merits of the project.
Kirchmeyer sought to refute arguments against the program’s tactics. She said all prescribers were held to the standard of care that was in place in 2012 and 2013. The medical board believes in its current approach because the CURES database shows that many deceased patients had received controlled substances from more than one prescriber, she said, and “it’s unclear whether any of these providers were actually aware that their patients were using multiple prescribers.”
Letter toned down
One criticism of the program, that the letters to physicians were far too threatening and inaccurately implied a family member had filed a “complaint,” has resulted in a major rewording, “based on feedback we received from doctors and consumers,” Kirchmeyer said.
Instead of telling them the board received a “complaint,” new letters sent this summer specify the source — records from the state Department of Public Health — and explain that the inquiry is meant to reduce “the alarming number of overdose deaths.”
It specifies that the review is “routine,” and stresses that “just because a patient death occurred, it does not automatically mean the physician deviated from the standard of care.”
Lenzkes, Jacintho, and Speckart said in separate interviews that the board is right to be concerned about overprescribing. “There’s a lot of abuse, we all agree,” Speckart said.
Added Lenzkes: “When you hear a bunch of doctors all at the same time all getting the same letter, and you realize they’re going through the same thing, you see why some are saying [to patients], ‘Sorry, if you have a lot of medical conditions, we’re not going to take care of you.'”

ASCO Addresses PBM Effects on Cancer Care


Certain cost-control practices of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) companies have the potential to limit patient access to timely, high-quality cancer care, according to a position statement from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Responding to oncologists’ concerns, the statement identifies PBM practices that “might compromise physicians’ ability to provide the right treatment at the right time for people with cancer; place cancer patients at risk of serious complications due to drug dispensing errors, or drive up out-of-pocket costs for patients.”
Examples of potentially harmful PBM practices included “gag clauses” that prohibit pharmacists from telling patients about lower-cost drug options, requiring patients to use mail-order prescription services in lieu of seeing a physician, and “brown bagging” or “white bagging” policies that require oncologists to administer drugs they have not prepared in their offices.
“There’s no doubt that the high cost of cancer care is a major burden on patients and the healthcare system, but efforts to address the problem shouldn’t come at the expense of quality patient care,” ASCO president Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, said in a prepared statement.
To address concerns raised by the oncology community, ASCO recommended that:
  • PBMs and payers immediately address quality-of-care concerns related to cancer patients, including assurance that changes to prescribed therapy are made only in the context of consultation with and approval of a patient’s physician
  • Gag clauses be prohibited, and that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) eliminate contractual requirements that prevent pharmacies from sharing information with patients about cost-effective medication options
  • CMS require PBMs to provide detailed accounting of direct and indirect remuneration (DIR) fees, to instruct contractors and PBMs to discontinue use of existing Star performance ratings and related DIR claw backs on oncology dispensing physicians and practice-based pharmacies, and to rely on measures and standards appropriate to the specialty
  • CMS prevent PBMs from excluding qualified in-office dispensing or provider-led pharmacies from its networks
  • CMS consider extending use of the JW modifier to report the amount of a drug that is discarded to aid identification of sources and cost of waste related to chemotherapy drugs
  • Pharmacy and therapeutics committees should extend full and meaningful participation to oncology specialists
The complete report, entitled “Pharmacy Benefit Managers and Their Impact on Cancer,” is available on the ASCO website.

Zai Lab files to sell $150M of American depositary shares


https://thefly.com/landingPageNews.php?id=2784742

Judge Orders ‘Virtue Signalers’ To Return All $403k GoFundMe $ To Homeless Vet


In what some have called the greatest exhibition of fake ‘virtue signaling’ ever, the “feel good story” of late last year that went really, really bad; now has a silver lining…
As we detailed previously, homeless veteran Johnny Bobbitt Jr. served as an ammunition technician in the U.S. Marine Corps.  After leaving the Marines, Bobbitt worked as a fireman and a paramedic before eventually falling on hard times. 
Last October, Bobbitt came across Kate McClure after she had become stranded on the side of I-95 in a bad section of Philadelphia.  Even though he was living on the streets, he used his last 20 dollars to buy her some gasoline so that she could get home.  To thank him, McClure and her boyfriend Mark D’Amico created a GoFundMe campaign to raise money to help Bobbitt get off the streets.  The original goal was to raise $10,000, but the story went mega-viral and the campaign ultimately raised a total of $403,000.
It was the “feel good story” of the holiday season, and it was covered extensively by the mainstream media.  McClure and Bobbitt even made a joint appearance on Good Morning America, and it appeared that this was one news story that truly had a happy ending.
But it didn’t… McClure and D’Amico never gave Bobbitt the money.  Instead, they took charge of it and bought him the things that they thought he “needed”.
The Philadelphia Inquirer later reported that Bobbitt had only received about half of the funds raised.
And so, as The Hill reportsBobbitt sued the couple claiming that they had mismanaged the funds, but the couple said they would not give Bobbitt the money because Bobbit had reportedly become drug addicted again.
Bobbitt accused the couple of fraud, alleging that the two committed fraud and conspiracy by taking large amounts of the donations to “enjoy a lifestyle they could not afford” and using the account as “their personal piggy bank,” and asked a judge to appoint a supervisor to manage the money in the fundraising account.
And overnight the verdict came down and a judge on Thursday gave a South Jersey couple less than a day to hand over what’s left of the $400,000 they raised through a GoFundMe campaign for Johnny Bobbitt Jr.
The Inquirer reports that Superior Court Judge Paula T. Dow in Mount Holly ordered Kate McClure, 28, and Mark D’Amico, 35, to transfer the money into an escrow account by Friday afternoon and hire a forensic accountant to review the financial records within 10 days.
“The funds should be removed from [D’Amico’s and McClure’s control] and frozen,” Dow said during a one-hour hearing.
The filing also asks for an injunction that would prevent more of the money from being spent.
Given that the New Jersey couple has until this afternoon to turn over the money, and has already blown through it “enjoying a lifestyle they could not afford,” perhaps they should set up a GoFundMe page for that? If Lanny Davis can do it, and receive cash from people, anyone can.
Good luck raising the cash to pay Bobbitt back!