C:\documents and settings\lpaadll\local settings\temp\mxlibdir\adoption of amicar (tb).wpd
Proposed: November 20, 2006 at 38 N.J.R. 4819(a)
Adopted: April 19, 2007 by the New Jersey Racing Commission,
Filed: April 27, 2007 as R. 2007 d. 171, with a substantive change not requiring additional public notice and comment (N.J.A.C. 1:30-6.3)
Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses:
COMMENT: The rule amendment was proposed by Dr. Jay Baldwin, a
licensed veterinary practitioner who treats race horses in this State and is
licensed to do so by the New Jersey Racing Commission. In his petition, Dr.
Baldwin commented that the drug AMICAR® is an adjunct medication which
provides more aggressive therapy to prevent exercise induced pulmonary
hemorrhage (EIPH), or respiratory bleeding, in racehorses. Dr. Baldwin
further commented that AMICAR® is superior to Furosemide (LASIX®),
which drug is presently permissible to treat respiratory bleeding in eligible
New Jersey race horses. Dr. Baldwin included in his comments a summary
of research from the Oregon State University, which he indicated shows that
AMICAR® is effective in controlling bleeding in race horses. Dr. Baldwin
further commented that most of the other Mid-Atlantic region racing states
currently allow race-day use of AMICAR®. RESPONSE: As further discussed below, the preliminary findings of a
Kansas State University study, and the preliminary findings of a University
of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center study,
appear to question the research of the Oregon State University study, as
reported by Dr. Baldwin, that AMICAR® is effective in controlling bleeding in
Significantly, however, in addition to the findings of scientific studies
concerning AMICAR®, Dr. Baldwin correctly notes that AMICAR® is
presently being used on racehorses in all the Mid-Atlantic region racing
jurisdictions (i.e. Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia),
with the exception of New Jersey and New York. That permitted usage,
under actual race conditions, allows for some assessment of the impact of
such administrations in a direct sense. As concerns other states which
have allowed the use of AMICAR®, the Racing Commission has no
information that equine practicing veterinarians administering the drug
have reported witnessing negative impacts to the animal. Further, we have
no information from the Racing Commissions of those states which indicates
that any negative impacts have been experienced. While both the Kansas
State University and the New Bolton Center study appear to conclude that
the administration of AMICAR® has no efficacy in the treatment of respiratory
bleeding, many practicing veterinarians and licensed horsemen, who have
direct experience with the actual administration of the drug on racehorses,
The Racing Commission believes, as more fully explained below (See
“Summary of Agency Initiated Change”), that permitting the use of AMICAR®
in New Jersey on a limited basis, to December 31, 2007, will afford more
time for scientific studies in this area to be finalized and, significantly, will
also allow for direct observation of AMICAR® administration in this State.
The permitted use of AMICAR® in this State for this designated time period,
under the watchful eyes of the Racing Commission, the Racing Commission
veterinary staff, and the New Jersey licensed veterinary practitioners, will
afford opportunity for the Racing Commission and such veterinary
professionals to directly observe the impact of AMICAR® administration on
the eligible New Jersey horse race population.
In sum, the Racing Commission believes, in view of Dr. Baldwin’s
comments, as well as the other received comments and the various factors
present, that its determination to adopt this rule with an agency initiated
change limiting the effective date of paragraph 4 to the rule as proposed (that
is, limiting AMICAR® administration to December 31, 2007), will not only
allow time for additional scientific evidence to be developed, but among
other things will beneficially allow for a direct assessment of AMICAR
administration on the eligible New Jersey horse population. COMMENT: Dr. Kenneth McKeever, Ph.D., filed comments in opposition to
the proposed rule because, although the AMICAR® study at Kansas State
University has not been formally completed, preliminary findings presented
by Dr. McKeever indicate that: 1) AMICAR® has no efficacy in the treatment
of EIPH; 2) its use demonstrates an ergolytic effect in racing horses
(decreasing performance); and 3) the drug is potentially dangerous to the
well-being of the horse’s normal blood clotting mechanisms. RESPONSE: Although Dr. McKeever presented scientifically relevant
information on the use of AMICAR®, the Commission notes that the Kansas
State University study is not a published peer-reviewed study at this time.
Further, although the Dr. McKeever reports that the Kansas State University
study evidences that AMICAR® administration may have a negative impact
on the health of a horse and horse performance, the New Bolton Center
study (also not a published peer-reviewed study at this time), which was
completed after the submission of Dr. McKeever’s comments, does not
reportedly find such as part of its conclusions. As concerns the other Mid-
Atlantic region states which have allowed the use of AMICAR®, as was noted
above, the Racing Commission has no information evidencing that the
administration of AMICAR® has a negative health impact to the animal.
While both the Kansas State University and the New Bolton Center study
appear to conclude that the administration of AMICAR® has no efficicacy in
the treatment of EIPH, many practicing veterinarians and horsemen
COMMENT: Barbara Sachau opposes the new rule because it concerns the
legal administration of medication to race horses. Ms. Sachau indicates that
there is no research study available on the use of AMICAR® to treat exercised
induced pulmonary hemorrhage. Ms. Sachau believes the proposal does not
benefit the health of the animal but benefits the owners as it permits them
to make money by racing horses which display respiratory bleeding. RESPONSE: Although Ms. Sachau opposes the rule, the Racing Commission
believes that the adoption of this rule, with an agency initiated change to the
proposal limiting the use of AMICAR® in this State until December 31, 2007,
will be beneficial for the reasons set forth in the other comment responses
and as described below (See “Summary of Agency Initiated Change”).
COMMENT: The New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemens’ Association, Inc.
(“NJTHA”) commented that it supports the proposed rule for the reasons that
the permissible administration of AMICAR® in New Jersey would: assist in
increasing field size, that is, the number of horses eligible to and
participating in races; encourage other horsemen to ship race horses into
New Jersey; stop New Jersey horsemen from shipping to neighboring states;
and bring a level playing field to New Jersey as compared to surrounding
RESPONSE: The Racing Commission believes that its adoption of the rule,
with the described agency initiated change, addresses the valid concerns as
expressed by the NJTHA. The Racing Commission recognizes that its
determination to limit the ability to administer AMICAR® to eligible New
Jersey race horses, as a result of its determination to limit the applicability
of paragraph 4 to the rule to December 31, 2007, will only temporarily
address the NJTHA’s concerns. However, in view of other received comments
and for the reasons elaborated upon below (See “Summary of Agency
Initiated Change”), the Racing Commission believes that the imposition of
this limitation is prudent, warranted, and will allow for the development of
additional scientific and practical evidence concerning AMICAR®. In the
event the Racing Commission determines, through the rulemaking process,
to propose that this rule be further amended to permit the administration of
AMICAR® beyond December 31, 2007, the additional evidence that will arise
during this AMICAR® use period will likely be most pertinent. COMMENT: The Racing Commission received a petition, signed by various
horsemen, in favor of the rule as proposed. This petition was signed by
approximately 71 persons, most of whom appear to be affiliated with harness
racing. The petition reads as follows: “WE THE UNDERSIGNED NJRC
Licensees respectfully request that race-day use of AMICAR® be allowed in
NJ, for the health benefit of our horses.”
RESPONSE: As noted above, the question of whether AMICAR® is effective
in aiding respiratory bleeding race horses appears inconclusive. The
Racing Commission believes, in view of all factors present, including this and
the other received comments, that the adoption of this rule with the
described agency initiated change will allow time for additional scientific
evidence to be developed or finalized. The Racing Commission further
believes this will permit opportunity for a direct assessment of AMICAR®
administration on the New Jersey horse population, and allow additional
time to consult with other competing racing jurisdictions concerning their
use or discontinuance of AMICAR® in 2008.
Summary of Agency Initiated Change:
The Racing Commission, at it public meeting of April 19, 2007,
determined to adopt the rule proposal with a substantive change. For the
reasons described herein, the Racing Commission determined to adopt
paragraph 4 to the rule, but only until December 31, 2007. This change is
set forth through the addition of subparagraph ii to paragraph 4 to the rule
as proposed. As a result of this agency initiated change to the rule as
proposed, and unless this rule is further amended through additional and
independent rule making authorizing the administration of AMICAR® beyond
such date, the administration of AMICAR® is only authorized as a result of
the instant adoption until December 31, 2007.
Pursuant to its review of this matter, and in arriving at it determination
to adopt this rule with the noted change, the Racing Commission balanced
various factors relating to the use of AMICAR® in New Jersey racehorses.
The Racing Commission considered that various racing jurisdictions
(Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio),
some of which are considered to form a “racing circuit” with New Jersey,
have permitted and presently permit the administration of AMICAR®. The
discrepancy concerning AMICAR®, between New Jersey and such other
states, results in a competitive disadvantage to the New Jersey racing
industry and its participants. Horsemen from those other states which
permit AMICAR® are discouraged from bringing their horses to New Jersey,
because those horses would be required to compete in this State without
such an administration. Conversely, New Jersey horsemen are placed in a
position where they must decide whether to transport their horses to these
other jurisdictions and there allow them to be treated with AMICAR®, and in
such case, whether to allow them to return to New Jersey where they must
be taken off AMICAR® to be eligible to race. These factors translate to a
decrease in the New Jersey race horse population.
Further, pursuant to the rulemaking process, the Racing Commission
was presented with no evidence that the administration of AMICAR® in those
jurisdictions permitting it has had any negative consequence to the animal,
or to the conduct of racing. It appears that other states permitting the
administration of AMICAR® have done so primarily based upon anecdotal
information or veterinary opinion that it benefits racehorses by preventing
or positively impacting respiratory bleeding in the animal, without
impacting race performance. In its evaluation, the Racing Commission also
considered the state of the available scientific evidence concerning
AMICAR® administration. The Racing Commission, in view of ongoing
research in this area of science, was interested in whether AMICAR® has
been demonstrated to medically assist racehorses that are respiratory
bleeders, and whether such an administration impacts performance. The
Racing Commission, in this regard, was awaiting the results of a most
current study in this area, which was commissioned by the “National Racing
Consortium” (i.e., the New Bolton Center study). Although that completed
study has yet to be submitted for “peer review”, and has not been published
in a scientific journal, the Racing Commission has been advised the study
concludes that AMICAR® has no medical impact on respiratory bleeders and,
in terms of the horses performance, has a benign or no effect.
In view of these findings of the New Bolton Center study, the Racing
Commission has recently been informed that a number of the other Mid-
Atlantic region jurisdictions, which permit the administration of AMICAR®,
will continue to monitor the status of this science (and particularly the New
Bolton Center study), as well as other pertinent factors regarding the
administration of AMICAR®, to determine whether the administration of
AMICAR® beyond 2007 should there be continue or be discontinued. The
New Jersey Racing Commission will be meeting with these other
jurisdictions, in the next few months, specifically to discuss this question of
Accordingly, in considering this matter, the Racing Commission
balanced the impact of the continued use of AMICAR® in competing
jurisdictions with the apparent fluid status of the scientific evidence
surrounding AMICAR®. The Commission is of the view that, adopting the
aspect of the rule allowing for the administration of AMICAR®, until
December 31, 2007 only, will have positive impacts. These positive impacts
include, during this period, to place the New Jersey racing industry on a
more equal competitive basis with those jurisdictions now permitting the use
of AMICAR®. An additional significant benefit will be to allow the Racing
Commission, and its regulated community, to view first-hand the impacts of
AMICAR® administration upon New Jersey racehorses that qualify as
respiratory bleeders for such an administration. It will also allow the Racing
Commission to survey the other Mid-Atlantic racing jurisdictions to
determine their position on AMICAR® usage during 2008. The Racing
Commission further believes that the experience to be gained as a result of
its action, in approving the administration of AMICAR® through the end of
the year, will allow opportunity for meaningful first-hand rule proposal
commentary to be submitted, should the Racing Commission determine to
advertise a further amendment to this rule, proposing to authorize the
administration of AMICAR® to New Jersey race horses beyond the current
Federal Standards Statement
A Federal standards analysis is not required because the rules of
racing are dictated by State statute, N.J.S.A. 5:5-22, et seq., and the adopted
amendment is not subject to any Federal requirements or standards. Full text of the adoption follows (additions to proposal indicated in boldface
Administering medication to respiratory bleeders;
standards for the administration of non steroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and anti ulcer medications;
(a) The stewards may permit the administration of medication to control
respiratory bleeding under the following conditions:
4. If a horse is approved to receive Furosemide, the use of
aminocaproic acid (AMICAR® injectable only) as an adjunct bleeder
medication may be co-administered by a licensed veterinarian only when the
horse receives Furosemide. Dose: AMICAR® injectable 10 ml (2.5 gram) I.V.
i. Veterinarians must report that the horse was co-treated with
AMICAR® on the Furosemide medication slip.
*ii. The administration of AMICAR®, pursuant to this paragraph, is
only approved through December 31, 2007.*
MRSA Peritonitis Secondary to Perforation ofSigmoid Diverticulitis B y S h a w n M . V u o n g , M S I V; J a m e s E . A p p e l w i c k , M D Abstract: The occurrence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is well documented, but the pathology is usually associated with post surgical infections or long-term peritoneal dialysis. We report the case of a 50-year-oldCaucasia
might help cope with an outbreak of H5N1, it is For one thing, stocks are limited and it will take years for Roche to ramp up production -- even if, Little can be done to prevent an outbreak of bird as is being discussed now, it licenses generic flu if it comes in the next year or so before vaccine production can get started, health experts caution, but they say common sense Plus, the more