We can thank the paranoid FDA for this. Kinda stuck between a rock and hard place, though. One one hand, it's the only med that works for some people, but on the other hand people don't want to get sued for a bad outcome.

Let me show the other side of this coin

Friday I failed a stress test because of ununsule heart beat A year ago my wife had her meds changed because of the same thing .

We both used darvaset for pain as I disliked the effects of the other options as they messed with my head.

I am sceduled for a probe into my heart Monday and before they do it I will be sure to tell them about the darvaset as I have had two surgeries this year and was in the process of having another on my neck and that was the reason for the stress test in the first place.

My suggestion is to educate yourselves as we can't count on the FDA to protect our intrest above the interest of the drug industry

Have you tried straight acetomenophen? Line the article said, the 'bad' active ingredient was shown to have no effect.

I was on Oxycontin for about 5 years for chronic pain following 3 neck surgeries. The dr. put me on extremely high doses though, and now my new dr. of about 7 years has me on morphine and fentanyl. The morphine works better, is less dangerous (than 6-8 80 mg. Oxy's a day), and while I get a foggier head sometimes, is nothing like the Oxy was... I've never gotten a psychotropic reaction (gotten high) off any of them, but the morphine ('Opana') is safer and easier to take. Try that if nothing else is available for your pain.

The recall of darvon in the U.S. originates to a petition from Public Citizen, a watchdog group. They first began this drive in 2006.

At that time, they cited addiction and the dangers of mixing darvon with alcohol as reasons for recalling the drug. The heart rhythm issue was only briefly mentioned, and only cited in reference to elderly patients.

http://www.citizen.org/hrg1762

But in their press release today, Public Citizen says something just a bit different:

Evidence going back more than 30 years indicates that propoxyphene is not very effective, is toxic at doses not much higher than the recommend dose because a heart-toxic metabolite accumulates in the body, and is somewhat addictive. It has been linked to many thousands of U.S. deaths since 1981, a large proportion of which were likely caused by cardiac toxicity, including the interruption of electrical conduction in the heart.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=3221

Very few drugs are tested in elderly patients, and the elderly often have stronger reactions to drugs than younger people do. It would seem that this issue could have been handled with careful labeling, i.e. "Don't give this drug to elderly patients for more than a few weeks".

The whole thing just doesn't pass the smell test for me.

I seem to remember Darvon being available way back in the 60’s and they’re just getting around to being concerned about some detrimental effects now? I wonder what this is really all about.

I have Fibromyalgia and the only drug that helps the pain & keeps me functional is Darvon. I can't take the other drugs on the market and the over the counter meds don't work for me. What am I supose to do now, file for social security disability? Without the Darvon, I will not be able to work.

The heart rhythm issue was only briefly mentioned, and only cited in reference to elderly patients.

I can tell you for a fact and they all of a sudden poped up after being on Darvon for 2 months and I'm not no old geezer. I'll trade you your smell test for my heart palpitations and PVC's any day

Are you asking that hydrocodone and oxycodone be pulled from the market as well? If so, you had better hope you suffer a serious injury or have surgery that causes a great deal of post-operative pain. The reason those drugs are more often abused is because they cause fewer side effects than their alternatives (codeine,morphine) not because they're necessarily more addictive.

Propoxyphene however, is an entirely different matter. It's about as effective a pain killer as aspirin or Tylenol but lethal in doses only slightly higher than it's normally prescribed. Not a good combination, as anyone who's ever had intense pain that wasn't relieved by medicine can testify. If there's ever a situation where someone is likely to take more than was prescribed, that is it.

Indeed it is a different situation, and for those who feel that Darvocet is your drug of choice, I respectfully suggest that you try two extra strength tylenol, either name brand or generic, there is absolutely no difference. Most of Darvocet's efficacy is due to placebo effect, despite the fact that it was developed (and heralded) to be as effective as demerol. Of course, I remember when Talwin was marketed as non-addictive, and Darvon and Valium sat out on a counter, too.

Damn, I'm getting old!

It looks to me like the patents on Darvon and Darvocette have expired.This move cuts into the profits made by their competitors selling the generic version.That would account for the smell.They'll be introducing a newly patented alternative shortly.

Darvon/Darvocet have been off patent for at least 20 years. Most of the medical community have been aware of it's shortcomings for longer than that. If Lilly has been "withholding" an alternative waiting for this to happen, it's the dumbest fracking business decision in history.

True.I was thinking it would be something newly developed that would spark this action,not something they've been sitting on.

It's been 70 years and they won't admit that marijuana is completely harmless.They simply ignore the results of over 10,000 published studies and reviews.Yet the FDA will approve a pharmaceutical based on one study done by the manufacturer.

I think it probably has something to do with intangible considerations which affect the FDAs decision making process.Things like patents and money.

It's actually, 'Heavens to Mergatroid!'

Not being a smartie, just thought you'd want to know!

:D

Most of the medical community has been aware of the problems with propoxyphene for decades, and they're not limited to the arrhythmia's. I'm a pharmacist and I make certain on the rare occasion I still dispense it that I personally counsel the patient that if it doesn't relieve the pain NEVER to take more than prescribed. This is a particular problem with propoxyphene because a) it's only about as effective as aspirin or Tylenol for pain relief and b) the LD-50 (or dose at which 50% of the people taking it will die) is only twice the maximum prescribed dose. If there's ever a circumstance where someone is likely to take more than prescribed it's with a relatively ineffective pain med.

And I hope there is a new drug coming out soon. The primary reason propoxyphene is still used at all is that it has a low addiction potential when compared to opiates. If someone can develop a drug that's as effective at relieving pain as morphine/oxycodone without the potential for addiction it would be a huge boon to medicine and patients alike. So feel free to spend the $1,300,000,000 it costs to bring a new drug to market because it will make you very, very rich. Unless, of course, yours happens to be one of the 78.5% of drugs that make it to phase 1 clinical testing that never get approval.

It's actually, 'Heavens to Mergatroid!'

Not being a smartie, just thought you'd want to know!

:D

Sorry-wrong thread..

Good for you! Propoxyphene is and always has been nasty stuff. It's about time the US stepped up and did what was right regarding the stuff. It has been hawked as something special, which I think any medical professional who is honest will admit is complete bunk because the stuff is virtually worthless and it's damned dangerous stuff. As someone else pointed out, the potential for overdosage is high....and ten is a lethal dose.....because the stuff doesn't work worth spit.

Now.....do you want to know what is really dangerous? The medical community has become VERY complacent regarding propoxyphene. In fact, I have seen a new doctor twice and he has written me three months worth of the stuff without even taking vital signs, much LESS doing an exam. I think he may have looked at one old xray report....I have one knee that is so unstable that it actually stays bruised from the inside, my tibia is so subluxated and the whole structure so mobile even without weightbearing that there has been constant bruising around it for more than a year, and that is not my worst skeletal problem.

He said he doesn't like treating nurses because they THINK they know far more than they actually do. Well, this nurse knew enough not to take the crap. I didn't tell him that I dislike physicians for the same reason.

Apparently, at least from all indications, I knew far more than he did. Ironically, he charged my insurance $175 for:

Detailed history, Detailed exam, and medical decision.

My insurance company, the state medical board, and I are going to have a chat. Wonder if he made a note of my marked heart murmur? That would have been difficult, since I don't think the man owns a stethoscope.

retired nurse go get his a** as Dr's like this don't deserve the privilege of having a license

Just because it has not caused you any problems already does not in any way mean that the next dose you take will not kill you. I seriously advise you to ask your doc for something else.

And for the record, not all arrhythmias are created equal. Yours apparently is not one of the life threatening ones that are virtually uncontrollable, but it is still very dangerous for you to be using propoxyphene in any amount.

I seriously advise that people not abandon their medication for this or any other diet without the knowledge of a medical person. Doing so could kill you if you are not normally tightly controlled on a daily basis to begin with, which many on oral meds are not.

Just because the medical profession as a whole (and this is not meant as a slam at any particular practioner at any level) may be influenced by the pharmaceutical companies does not mean that they are entirely clueless about everything.

The FDA has obviously been in bed with the drug companies since the advent of the FDA. Not only the drug companies, but the tobacco industry, as well. Why cigarettes, with the drugs and poisons, like cyanide, carbon monoxide and arsenic in them, are still legal and available, is beyond me. Cigarettes kill nearly everyone that smokes them and studies have proven them more addictive than heroin! Also, studies (including recent ones), have shown that all it takes for the brain to become addicted to nicotine, is ONE cigarette.

And not to mention, the tobacco industry is allowed to charge whatever they see fit. When they lose a billion dollar lawsuit, they don't pay that money... the smokers do. Government needs a little more easy cash? Raise taxes on cigarettes so that the smokers give it to them.

And that's it in a nutshell. Without the taxes the government collects on cigarettes, there's no reason to keep them on the market. Last year, our sitting president (a smoker) passed along instructions for the FDA to 'investigate' the chemicals and poisons added to cigarettes... and still no response from them... they're too busy worrying about a drug that's been on the market for the last 53-some years.

**Yes, I'm a 'quit' smoker... two years ago I stopped poisoning myself and throwing my money into the hands of the tobacco industry and into whatever pockets they line to stay in business.**

Why did I go back? For several reasons. The second time, I saw a nurse practitioner, which is always my first choice anyway. Another month in pain is not as big a deal as many think when you have been in pain for years. I thought perhaps she would order something else, but she said, and I saw this myself, that the NP's in that office must ask his permission before writing anything. She did, however, give me a referral to someone else who would prescribe appropriately, which was necessary since I am new to the area and the local advertising/rating system is unhelpful. I'm waiting for them to call me with an appointment now. She did warn me about the Darvocet, and I assured her that I was aware of the danger and was not going to take the stuff.

The actions you describe tell me that you are an HMO member. An HMO is the reason I'm in a wheelchair now. My knee surgery was one of the last surgeries that they paid one of their docs $30K to deny before they got popped with enough fines to make that a less advantageous financial model. While one may have to take different actions without an HMO, I will never again willingly use an HMO. If my knee had been treated appropriately twenty years ago, I would very likely still be up to my elbows in blood on a more or less daily basis, which may not be everyone's cup of tea but was mine.

Now it's far too late, both for the knee and for the other injuries that have resulted from falls because of the instability of the knee as well as the damage to the other knee done by favoring the original injury..

I have had many different types of insurance the then 2 year old son is 21 years old. And trust me I know and understand your problem with your knee. Our stories are very close except mine is my ankle. You don't get treated well when you get hurt on the job they want to do the least amount of care. I'm paying for that now. Are you going to get an replacement or can you? I'm in a catch 22 because they don't do enough ankle replacements for me to take a chance on one.

K777 that is cool your insurance company does that with you, but I don't think it is the norm. I can sit 20 minutes on hold with mine, get sent to three different departments, and then still not find someone who will actually help me or really listen. I am happy for you...cool! Yes, we do have to advocate for ourselves...wish it were that simple sometimes.

Will I get a replacement? No. It would solve one problem, but at this point I have multiple skeletal compromise issues, plus some other chronic problems, including a genetic issue inherited from my lovely Mediterranean relatives from the 1400's. Oh, and then there's the osteoporosis...I could end up an amputee, although they are reluctant to admit it even though no one is suggesting the surgery. Knee replacement is brutal surgery LOL.

Preferably either shred it or wet it first then wad it into a tight ball before you do so it cannot be used by someone else

I understand that there is a problem with the propoxyphene, and that it is the acetaminophen that is really the pain killer, but the propoxyphene seems to prolong the pain killing effect of the acetaminopen. If I take the acetaminophen alone, I have to take it more often than I want to. I don't like taking pain meds to begin with, but find it necessary at times. I can tolerate a fair bit of pain, but I also have some nerve damage in my lower back due to a fall down some steps during a wind storm years ago. I was put on Neurotin300(gabapentin300) for that and I wasn't happy with the way it made me feel. Groggy and drugged feeling. I like to know what I'm doing when possible, that's why I am not a drinker, lol. The Neurotin also helped with my arthritus some, and didn't bother my ulcer. When you have an ulcer there are so many meds that are off limits, such as Aleve, which I took several years ago just to try it and it helped more than the Darvacet for the pain, until later that night, when the horrible stomach pains started and lasted for 2 days. Maybe my Dr. can come up with an alternative that will help me and not be considered dangerous. At least for a few years anyway.

Omg I know that feeling or they tell you - you should be healed by now or it shouldn't hurt now lol. At one point I was told to wish myself better. I do hope you find someone good in your area. It's was a quest for me. Very frustrating when you go from drug to drug and it doesn't work.

Someone at the FDA is in the pockets of Big Pharma because this was a big issue 30 years ago. I thought they pulled Darvon back then and had no idea it was still being used. Why did it take the FDA so long to do this? This was a known issue 30 years ago. Wow.

Why don't we abolish the FDA and let doctors decide what medications their patients should have? The act of banning ANY drug is a statement by the government that they care more about your life than your doctor.

The government has been at war with pain medications for decades. The US has a chronic problem with doctors under-treating pain; especially serious chronic pain. The problem is so bad that many patients have been driven to suicide to escape the pain. My mother worked in health care her entire life and often referred to patients taking a "lead pill" for untreated pain.

Government is there to serve ITS interests; not YOURS.

First, about the manufacturer of the drug. They are one of a small number of manufacturers that specialize in buying the rights to the trade names from the original innovator manufacturer after the product has been off patent for a number of years. Since most "Brand" named drugs will lose 90% of their market share within 12 months of coming off patent after a number of years further declines in sales many of these manufacturers will no longer find it profitable to continue to market the drug and sell the rights to the drug name to these small companies that have much less overhead. There are a number of people who believe that more expensive is better and these manufacturers earn their living buy catering to that market. Eli Lilly is the company that discovered Darvon/Darvocette. They have had nothing to do with the manufacturing of the product for around a decade.

Second, all drugs have side effects. For a drug like cephalexin (Keflex) the vast majority of these side effects are mild (stomach upset, diarrhea,dizziness) but there are serious ones that occur on rare occasions. Although cephalexin can have some serious side effects it's highly unlikely it had anything to do your arrhythmia or chest pains- there's nothing about it in any of the medical literature I could find.

Next, naproxen is Aleve. Advil is Ibuprofen. And taking a buffered aspirin (Bufferin) does absolutely nothing to lower your risk of a GI bleed. You would likely be better served by taking Tylenol or a prescription pain killer like tramadol. Ask your doctor or pharmacist.

Finally, taking any drug involves a certain level of risk. But would you take a drug that cured 90% of the patients who took it and without it there was a 100% chance of dying in 30 days but killed the other 10% of patients on the spot? My guess is almost everyone would. Most cases are far less clear-cut but almost all boil down to risk verses benefit. Always ask your doctor what the risks are to NOT taking a drug first. Not treating an infection, not reducing your blood pressure or cholesterol, not treating your glaucoma- all these things have risks. Then ask your doctor or pharmacist what the risks are to taking the drug. Most of the the serious effects occur in between 1 in a 1,000 to as little as 1 in a million patients. If you're really concerned about a side effect ask if there are alternatives. Usually if there are they are either not as effective or have risks of their own because your prescriber has already performed a risk/benefit analysis on their own. Medical professionals do this dozens or even hundreds of times a day when making decisions and it becomes second nature to most. But ultimately the decision on what degree of risk you are comfortable with and what therapy you will follow is up to you and you need to be as well informed as possible to make that decision.

Actually, Keflex was not a new drug in 1992. It may have even been off patent by then, or getting close to it. I remember when dumping a gram of Keflin (the injectable form of Keflex, which preceded the oral by a number of years) into a liter of IV fluid ad dripping it over a 24 hour period was cutting edge medicine. We were doing some hot stuff.

I remember the first patient I treated with silvadine, which at that time was experimental. I also remember when they finally decided to acknowledge what virtually every nurse knew....that Talwin, which was hawked as the first absolutely non-addictive narcotic pain reliever was in fact addictive as hell.

The first IV I ever started came from a glass bottle, and went through a 20 g. 1" needle, too. Jelco's (intravenous catheters which eliminated, for the most part, the need for armboards) came out when I was still in nursing school, but had this bad habit of breaking off at the hub when you removed them and ending up in the heart, so procedure was that you applied a tourniquet when removing one. Needless to say, this resulted in some really impressive bruises. The patients were often somewhat less than impressed with the new technology and it wasn't unknown for them to request the old fashioned needle despite the fact that it meant that they were virtually immobilized.

When was this, you ask? The Dark Ages? Well, sort of. It was the mid '60's, folks. The only NSAID on the market was aspirin, although NSAID was an unknown term then. Oh, and we were taught not to use gloves, "because it might make the patient think you think they are dirty." We were taught how to clean up massive stools without having any of it touch us anywhere, and we were all expert at dodging blood.

It was a gentler, far less complicated (and in many ways, less dangerous for patients and nurses alike) time, and it wasn't that long ago.