LifeCare Chiropractic

The Best Chiropractic Care in Mesa, Arizona

Drug Research

COMPARISON OF NEW DRUGS NOT IN US BUDGET – (03-22-04)

by

Federal funding for comparative drug studies not in US budget

Isn’t that interesting? We have seen several editorials comparing the added cost of newer, more expensive drugs that are no more effective or safer than drugs currently in use.

The recent ALLHAT study stunned many by showing that the old approach of diuretics for high blood pressure where just as effective as the much more expensive calcium channel blockers and ACE inhibitors. So, at the drug companies’ “urging,” the government has decided they don’t have the money to compare the cost and efficacy of newer drugs to older ones. If it wasn’t our money feeding into the Medicare drug mess it would almost be entertaining…bmj.com Marwick 328 (7440): 603 –

Read entire article here

DRUG COMPANIES and DIRECT TO CONSUMER ADVERTISING – (12-12-05)

by

Professors speak out against advertising directly to consumers

While anyone with any common sense can realize that the ability of drug companies to advertise directly to consumers is a problem, many clinicians are blissfully unaware of the affect this has on their practices. But, before anyone jumps to the idea of eliminating DTC advertising by the drug companies, consider the money involved–not just for the drug companies, but for the media companies that run their ads…

Read entire article here

 

RANDOMIZED TRIALS STOPPED EARLY FOR BENEFIT – (12-06-05)

by

Randomized Trials Stopped Early for Benefit

There are times when researchers feel that the benefits for a product or drug they are testing are showing strong enough during earlier phases of research for the researchers to cancel the trial and proclaim the drug or procedure a success. These types of releases typically get much fanfare.

So this study looked at this phenomena and found that, in many cases, the decision to end a trial early was “jumping the gun” and when the data is looked at more closely, the “wonderful results” seen in the trial might not hold up too well. Yet another marketing ploy for the drug companies. Not only that, but think how much money they save by not completing the clinical trials.

Read entire article here

RISK OF ADVERSE GASTROINTESTINAL OUTCOMES – (01-09-06)

by

Risk of adverse gastrointestinal outcomes in patients taking cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors or conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Isn’t this just the biggest kick in the gluts? A new class of drugs, the selective COX-2 inhibitors like Vioxx and Celebrex are born and a market created by clever marketing campaigns to let people know that the “other” anti inflammatories can damage the GI tract. These drugs get handed out like candy, nearly bankrupting healthcare in some countries due to their high cost. Soon the evil side is seen in an increased tendency to clot the blood, leaving tens of thousands dead. Here’s the kicker—it may turn out that this class of drugs is not so good at doing what it was supposed to do better!! Run that by the widows and orphans whose loved ones suffered untimely deaths.

Read entire article here

THE TREND TOWARDS PRESCRIPTION DRUGS – (05-29-06)

by

The Changing Face of Teenage Drug Abuse The Trend toward Prescription Drugs

We feed our kids drugs (both prescription and OTC) like they’re candy. Many kids are on long term drug regimines for conditions like ADD and ADHS. Their parents both condone the children’s drug regimen and take drugs themselves when needed. Why should anyone be surprised to then find that these kids will choose wisely when they get older when it comes to both illicit and prescription drugs?

Read entire article here

EARLY EFFECTS OF ENDOTHELIAL FUNCTION – (05-29-06)

by

Early Effects on Endothelial Function of Atorvastatin 40 mg Twice Daily and its withdrawal

So, giving high dosages of this statin drug was beneficial for only a subset of patients, and when they were taken off the drug, the unhealthy response of their blood vessels returned within 3 days. The irony is that this is under “preventative cardiology” section in this journal.

Should be under the “studies to support long term pharmaceutical use to boost profits” section. Mainstream medicine still views “prevention” as the use of drugs to impact a condition before a more serious event occurs. So long as they maintain this viewpoint, they will never understand wellness and what it takes to help a patient get truly healthy. .

Read entire article here

DRUG SAMPLE INFLUENCED BY PRESCRIPTION – (09-06-05)

by

Do drug samples influence resident prescribing behavior?

Geez!!  Does no one in the midst of this travesty see this as a problem?  It’s almost laughable if it didn’t affect all of us so much.  We’ve done study after study after study that confirms that YES–the drug companies’ advertising that both patients and doctors is effective at changing prescribing behavior.  So do we stop it?  No.

We do another study to confirm the same thing.  Is it just me, or is there a problem here.  There’s no question that we recognize the problem in it’s illicit form–the drug pusher on the corner gives a small child their first taste of some drug and the child gets addicted.  So where are the studies finding that drugs given to children on the playground influence future drug buying decisions on the playground?  There are none–we take a strong proactive approach.

So how does the behavior and relationship differ between prescribed and illicit drugs?  Does it influence your decision to know that death by pharmaceutical is the leading cause of death in the US?

Read entire article here

Are You Going to Take That New Drug Your Doctor is Offerring?

by

The amount of money that goes into marketing new drugs is astounding. The goal is to produce a “blockbuster” drug that will bring in billions of dollars to the company.

Think Prosac, Celebrex / Vioxx, Neurontin, Lipitor, Premarin, Avandia or Fosamax.  These drugs have generated untold billions of dollars of profit for their respective companies.

However, far too often these drugs are promoted with much fanfare, but when the dust settles, patients are left looking around, short of the promised benefits and maybe even their lives.  Vioxx alone was believed to be responsible for 100,000 + heart attacks, but not until years after the drug was released and the whistleblowers pulled back the curtain and the hidden data was forced to be released via court order.

But, as the consumer, we rely on our doctors to act in our best interests.  Unfortunately, research has proven that physicians are very susceptible to marketing and financial incentives from the drug companies.  That leaves you to decipher whether the recommendations for a new drug from your doctor are based on fact or hype.

Luckily, in this particular article, some very smart researchers came up with some things to look for to tell if maybe you should pass on your doctors recommendation when it comes to a new drug. The authors suggest some guidelines to evaluate whether a new drug is likely to be of benefit.

Basically, the harder it is pushed, the less likely you will actually receive a benefit and the more likely that drug is to be pulled off the market in the future. These are the things to watch out for:

  1. Reducing thresholds for diagnosing disease (in other words, we’re going to medicate your bone density in osteopenia rather than osteoporotic)
  2. Relying on surrogate endpoints (studies looking at lowering cholesterol rather than lowering rates of heart attacks)
  3. Exaggerating safety claims (It was only 5% of the study participants that had their penis fall off…)
  4. Exaggerating efficacy claims (95% of study participants saw a reduction in their cholesterol)
  5. Creating new diseases (Heard the latest ads for Shift Work Disorder??)
  6. Encouraging unapproved uses (Neurontin / gabapentin was dinged for millions in fines for promoting non-approved uses)

Very interesting. Does this sound like anything you’re taking or that you have seen a commercial for?