OMNI Postings of 10/4/08
“I know a local zoologist who crossed a hyena with a parrot.”
“What did he get?”
“He’s not really sure, but it laughs at all its own jokes.”
But I digress…
“I know a local zoologist who crossed a hyena with a parrot.”
“What did he get?”
“He’s not really sure, but it laughs at all its own jokes.”
But I digress…
CQ (10/2) reported that a new study released Thursday from the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) found that “the quality of healthcare across the United States improved in 2007 despite rising health costs and a sluggish economy,” although “the quality of healthcare people received varied greatly depending on where they lived.”
According to the report, “people in New England were much more likely to receive quality care than those living in the deep South,” and the “difference…has cost about 88,000 lives a year.” Furthermore, “the quality of healthcare improved the most for people who are enrolled in commercial healthcare plans instead of government programs Medicare and Medicaid.” While “the commercial plans improved in 44 of 54 measures of healthcare quality,” the “private healthcare providers within the Medicare system showed improvement in only 24 of 45 measures of quality care, and most gains were small.” Furthermore, “for the second year in a row, the study also found that Medicaid quality has not improved.” In response, “NCQA suggests all insurance firms — public and private — should be required to measure their quality of care and report it publicly. This move would be especially helpful in eliminating waste from the ‘uneven’ Medicaid program, the study says.”
AP, 10/2/08:
Medtronic has warned physicians about issues with some of its implantable drug pump systems that have been linked to one patient death and dozens of other problems.
The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday posted a notice about problems with the tubing connecting the company’s catheters to its drug pumps. The pumps are implanted in the abdomen to deliver drugs to treat chronic pain. Minneapolis-based Medtronic warned physicians of the problem in late June.
Medtronic said the misconnections could block the flow of drugs, cause overdoses and other potentially fatal complications. The company said in a statement last week it has received 83 reports of problems with the systems, including one death.
A spokeswoman stressed on Thursday that Medtronic is not recalling the products, which were manufactured according to company standards. Medtronic’s letter to physicians provided guidance on how to make sure the devices are functioning properly.
Modern HealthCare (10/3, Robeznieks) reports that “hospitals may have an incentive to under-report their healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and states lack the ability to find out if the number of infections hospitals report is accurate,” according to a study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The report indicates the “problem is that — as the foundation of their reporting programs — states are using a system developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for hospitals to use for their own internal measurement of healthcare-associated infections. The CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network system relies on self-reported data.”
The GAO report concludes that this “may be giving hospitals ‘an incentive to minimize the number of HAI cases they identify and report.’” According to the report, “using these data ‘raises concerns about the lack of established mechanisms to check the completeness and accuracy of the data submitted by hospitals.’”
FDA Press Release, 10/3/08
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 3, 2008 |
Media Inquiries: |
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today issued the results of its interim safety and risk assessment of melamine and melamine-related compounds in food, including infant formula.
A safety/risk assessment is a scientifically based methodology used to estimate the risk to human health from exposure to specified compounds. It is based on available data and certain scientific assumptions in the absence of data. The purpose of the FDA interim safety/risk assessment was to identify the level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in food which would not raise public health concerns. The interim safety/risk assessment evaluated the melamine exposure in infant formula and in other foods.
The safety/risk assessment, prompted by reports of melamine contamination of milk-derived ingredients and finished food products containing milk manufactured in China, was conducted by scientists from FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the Center for Veterinary Medicine. The FDA reviewed scientific literature on melamine toxicity.
FDA is currently unable to establish any level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns. In large part, this is because of gaps in our scientific knowledge about the toxicity of melamine and its analogues in infants, including:
There is too much uncertainty to set a level in infant formula and rule out any public health concern. However, it is important to understand that this does not mean that any exposure to any detectable level of melamine and melamine–related compounds in formula will result in harm to infants.
In food products other than infant formula, the FDA concludes that levels of melamine and melamine-related compounds below 2.5 parts per million (ppm) do not raise concerns. This conclusion assumes a worst case exposure scenario in which 50% of the diet is contaminated at this level, and applies a 10-fold safety factor to the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) to account for any uncertainties. The TDI is an estimate of the maximum amount of an agent to which an individual could be exposed on a daily basis over the course of a lifetime without an appreciable health risk.
FDA continues to screen products, collaborate with foreign governments and their regulatory agencies, and monitor reports of contamination from international sources to help ensure that potentially contaminated products from foreign sources are examined if imported into the United States. If products are adulterated because they contain melamine and/or a melamine-related compound, the agency will take appropriate actions to prevent the products from entering commerce.
Finelli, Lyn et al. Pediatrics. 2008 Oct; 122(4); 805-811. Available at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/4/805.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. Pediatric influenza-associated death became a nationally notifiable condition in the United States during 2004. We describe influenza-associated pediatric mortality from 2004 to 2007, including an increase of Staphylococcus aureus coinfections.
METHODS. Influenza-associated pediatric death is defined as a death of a child who is younger than 18 years and has laboratory-confirmed influenza. State and local health departments report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demographic, clinical, and laboratory data on influenza-associated pediatric deaths.
RESULTS. During the 2004–2007 influenza seasons, 166 influenza-associated pediatric deaths were reported (n = 47, 46, and 73, respectively). Median age of the children was 5 years. Children often progressed rapidly to death; 45% died within 72 hours of onset, including 43% who died at home or in an emergency department.
Of 90 children who were recommended for influenza vaccination, only 5 (6%) were fully vaccinated. Reports of bacterial coinfection increased substantially from 2004–2005 to 2006–2007 (6%, 15%, and 34%, respectively). S aureus was isolated from a sterile site or endotracheal tube culture in 1 case in 2004–2005, 3 cases in 2005–2006, and 22 cases in 2006–2007; 64% were methicillin-resistant S aureus. Children with S aureus coinfection were significantly older and more likely to have pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome than those who were not coinfected.
CONCLUSIONS. Influenza-associated pediatric mortality is rare, but the proportion of S aureus coinfection identified increased fivefold over the past 3 seasons. Research is needed to identify risk factors for influenza coinfection with invasive bacteria and to determine the impact of influenza vaccination and antiviral agents in preventing pediatric mortality.
CDC Press Release, 10/2/08:
“…each year, health care providers in the U.S. prescribe tens of millions of antibiotics for viral infections.

To bring attention to this increasing problem, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will be observing the Get Smart About Antibiotics Week October 6-10, 2008. The campaign will highlight the coordinated efforts of the agency, states, non-profit partners, and for-profit partners to educate the public about antibiotic resistance and the importance of appropriate antibiotic use.
“Antibiotic overuse is a serious problem and a threat to everyone′s health,” says Dr. Lauri Hicks, medical director of CDC′s Get Smart: Know When Antibiotics Work program. Over-prescribing antibiotics, using a broad-spectrum therapy when a more specific drug would be better, starting and stopping medications, giving leftover medications to a friend who appears to have the same ailment you had, all contribute to the problem of antibiotic drug resistance, according to Hicks.
“As we enter this year′s cold and flu season, we ask parents to not insist on getting antibiotics when a health care provider says they are not needed,” says Hicks. “If you have a cold, or the flu, antibiotics won’t work for you.”
According to Hicks antibiotics kill bacteria, not the viruses that cause colds or flu, most coughs and bronchitis, sore throats not caused by strep, and runny noses. Taking antibiotics when you don′t need them or not as prescribed increases your risk of getting an infection later that resists antibiotic treatment. If the health care provider’s recommendation is to wait- wait. People need to be patient and let the body do its work.
Hicks also asks health care providers to take the time to educate their patients about antibiotic resistance and the possibility of having serious side effects. For example, allergic reactions to antibiotics, such as rash and anaphylaxis, send thousands of patients to the emergency room each year, according to a recent study published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases Journal.
To help prevent illness, Hicks encourages people to wash their hands frequently, get the flu vaccine and avoid close contact with people who are sick.
The campaign will reach out to parents and health care providers through advertisements, fact sheets, brochures, posters, radio and print public service announcements, podcasts, and mainstream media interviews.”
For more information or to download free campaign materials, visit www.cdc.gov/getsmart.
Contact:
Tristar Food Wholesale Co Inc.
(201) 938-2590
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — October 3, 2008 — Tristar Food, Jersey City, NJ is initiating a nationwide recall of all of their 100 ml plastic bottle packages of Blue Cat Flavor Drink (Lanmao) because it may be contaminated with Melamine.

Consumers who have the product which is being recalled should stop using it immediately. If consumers have questions about possible health risks, they should contact their doctor.
Product was distributed nationwide in Asian grocery stores.
The product comes in 100 ml plastic bottles package with a BESTBEFORE date. There are four (4) flavors (see below) printed in Chinese. All packaging has a logo of blue cat on the back of the bottle and the word “blue cat” (in Chinese) on the front.
No illnesses associated with this product have been reported to date.
The recall was initiated after FDA testing discovered that product was found to contain Melamine.
Consumers who have purchased Blue Cat Flavor Drink (Lanmao) are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 201-938-2590, Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00, Eastern Standard Time.
NY Times, 10/4/08 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/health/policy/04drug.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print)

The psychiatrist, Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff of Emory University, is the most prominent figure to date in a series of disclosures that is shaking the world of academic medicine and seems likely to force broad changes in the relationships between doctors and drug makers.
In one telling example, Dr. Nemeroff signed a letter dated July 15, 2004, promising Emory administrators that he would earn less than $10,000 a year from GlaxoSmithKline to comply with federal rules. But on that day, he was at the Four Seasons Resort in Jackson Hole, Wyo., earning $3,000 of what would become $170,000 in income that year from that company — 17 times the figure he had agreed on.
The Congressional inquiry, led by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, is systematically asking some of the nation’s leading researchers to provide their conflict-of-interest disclosures, and Mr. Grassley is comparing those documents with records of actual payments from drug companies. The records often conflict, sometimes starkly.
“After questioning about 20 doctors and research institutions, it looks like problems with transparency are everywhere,” Mr. Grassley said. “The current system for tracking financial relationships isn’t working.”
The findings suggest that universities are all but incapable of policing their faculty’s conflicts of interest. Almost every major medical school and medical society is now reassessing its relationships with drug and device makers.
“Everyone is concerned,” said Dr. James H. Scully Jr., the president-elect of the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, whose 30 members represent more than 500,000 doctors.
Dr. Nemeroff is a charismatic speaker and a widely admired scientist who has written more than 850 research reports and reviews. He was editor in chief of the influential journal Neuropsychopharmacology. His research has focused on the long-term mental health risks associated with child abuse as well as the relationship between depression and cardiovascular disease.
Dr. Nemeroff did not respond to calls and e-mail messages seeking comment. Jeffrey L. Molter, an Emory spokesman, wrote in an e-mail statement that the university was “working diligently to determine whether our policies have been observed consistently with regard to the matters cited by Senator Grassley.”
The statement continued: “Dr. Nemeroff has assured us that: ‘To the best of my knowledge, I have followed the appropriate university regulations concerning financial disclosures.’ ” On Friday night, Emory announced that Dr. Nemeroff would “voluntarily step down as chairman of the department, effective immediately, pending resolution of these issues.”
Mr. Grassley began his investigation in the spring by questioning Dr. Melissa P. DelBello of the University of Cincinnati after The New York Times reported her connections to drug makers. Dr. DelBello told university officials that she earned about $100,000 from 2005 to 2007 from eight drug makers, but AstraZeneca alone paid her $238,000 during the period, Mr. Grassley found.
Then in early June, the senator reported to Congress that Dr. Joseph Biederman, a renowned child psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, and a colleague, Dr. Timothy E. Wilens, had reported to university officials earning several hundred thousand dollars each in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007, when in fact they had earned at least $1.6 million each.
Then the senator focused on Dr. Alan F. Schatzberg of Stanford, president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, whose $4.8 million in stock holdings in a drug development company raised concerns.
Mr. Grassley has sponsored legislation called the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which would require drug and device companies to publicly list payments to doctors that exceed $500. Several states already require such disclosures.
As revelations from Mr. Grassley’s investigation have dribbled out, trade organizations for the pharmaceutical industry and medical colleges have agreed to support the bill. Eli Lilly and Merck have announced that they would list doctor payments next year even without legislation.
The National Institutes of Health have strict rules regarding conflicts of interest among grantees, but the institutes rely on universities for oversight. If a university fails, the agency has the power to suspend its entire portfolio of grants, which for Emory amounted to $190 million in 2005, although the agency rarely takes such drastic measures.
Dr. Nemeroff was the principal investigator for a five-year $3.9 million grant financed by the National Institute of Mental Health for which GlaxoSmithKline provided drugs.
Income of $10,000 or more from the company in any year of the grant — a threshold Dr. Nemeroff crossed in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, records show — would have required Emory to inform the institutes and take steps to deal with the conflict or to remove Dr. Nemeroff as the investigator.
Repeatedly assured by Dr. Nemeroff that he had not exceeded the limit, Emory did nothing.
“Results from N.I.H.-funded research must not be biased by any conflicting financial interests,” John Burklow, a spokesman for the health institutes, said in the kind of tough statement that in the past has rarely been followed by real sanctions. “Officials at Emory are investigating the concerns.”
“Failure to follow N.I.H. standards” on conflict of interest, Mr. Burklow continued, “is very serious, and N.I.H. will take all appropriate action to ensure compliance.”
In 2004, Emory investigated Dr. Nemeroff’s outside consulting arrangements. In a 14-page report, Emory’s conflict of interest committee detailed multiple “serious” and “significant” violations of university procedures intended to protect patients.
But the university apparently took little action against Dr. Nemeroff and made no effort to independently audit his consulting income, documents show.
Universities, too, can benefit from the fame and money the deals can bring — a point Dr. Nemeroff made in a May 2000 letter stamped “confidential” that he sent to the dean of Emory’s medical school. The letter, which was part of a record from a Congressional hearing, addressed Dr. Nemeroff’s membership on a dozen corporate advisory boards (some of the companies’ names have since changed).
“Surely you remember that Smith-Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals donated an endowed chair to the department and that there is some reasonable likelihood that Janssen Pharmaceuticals will do so as well,” he wrote.
“In addition, Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals has funded a Research Career Development Award program in the department, and I have asked both AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and Bristol-Meyers [sic] Squibb to do the same. Part of the rationale for their funding our faculty in such a manner would be my service on these boards.”
Universities once looked askance at professors who consulted for more than one or two drug companies, but that changed after a 1980 law gave the universities ownership of patents discovered with federal money.
The law helped give birth to the biotechnology industry and led to the discovery of dozens of life-saving medicines. Consulting arrangements soon proliferated at medical schools, and Dr. Nemeroff — who at one point consulted for 21 drug and device companies simultaneously — became a national model.
He may now become a model for a broad reassessment of industry relationships. Many medical schools, societies and groups are considering barring doctors from giving lectures on drug or device marketing.
For all his fame in the world of psychiatry, Dr. Nemeroff has faced ethics troubles before. In 2006, he blamed a clerical mix-up for his failing to disclose that he and his co-authors had financial ties to Cyberonics, the maker of a controversial device that they reviewed favorably in a journal he edited.
The Cyberonics paper led to a bitter e-mail exchange between Dr. Nemeroff and Claudia R. Adkison, an associate dean at Emory, according to Congressional records. Dr. Adkison noted that Cyberonics had not only paid Dr. Nemeroff and his co-authors but had also given an unrestricted educational grant to Dr. Nemeroff’s department.
“I can’t believe that anyone in the public or in academia would believe anything except that this paper was a piece of paid marketing,” Dr. Adkison wrote on July 20, 2006.
Two years earlier, unknown to the public, Emory’s conflict of interest committee discovered that Dr. Nemeroff had made more serious blunders, including failing to disclose conflicts of interest in trials of drugs from Merck, Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson.
His continuing oversight of a federally financed trial using GlaxoSmithKline medicines led Dr. Adkison to write Dr. Nemeroff on July 15, 2004, that “you must clearly certify on your annual disclosure form that you do not receive more than $10,000 from GSK.”
In a reply dated Aug. 4, Dr. Nemeroff wrote that he had already done so but promised again that “my consulting fees from GSK will be less than $10,000 per year throughout the period of this N.I.H. grant.”
When he sent that letter, Dr. Nemeroff had already earned more than $98,000 that year from GlaxoSmithKline. Three weeks later, he received another $3,844.56 for giving a marketing talk at the Passion Fish Restaurant in Woodbury, N.Y.
From 2000 through 2006, Dr. Nemeroff earned more than $960,000 from GlaxoSmithKline but listed earnings of less than $35,000 for the period on his university disclosure forms, according to Congressional documents.
Sarah Alspach, a GlaxoSmithKline spokeswoman, said via e-mail that “Dr. Nemeroff is a recognized world leader in the field of psychiatry,” and that the company requires its paid speakers to “proactively disclose their financial relationship with GSK, and we believe that healthcare professionals are responsible for making those disclosures.”