Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.com4 in 10 wrongly believe the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves only 'extremely effective' drugs, survey finds
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Getting your body beach-readyMaine middle school to offer birth controlDNA study seeks origin of Appalachia's MelungeonsAfter poisonings, PScreening finds skin cancer: Does it save lives?Pregnant women warned about antidepressantMore kids eating detergent packs, docs reportBorder town hospitals straddle care and costsItaly doctors save baby with smallest artificial heartObesity not always tied to higher heart risk
Leave a Comment:
Like healthcare itself, the drug industry is about making money first and curing the ill, last. To assume better is to risk your own health on behalf of a business.
This is a weak link in our system and one that we dare not ignore.
Well said, MFranklin.
Many times when I'm waiting for the doctor, drug salespeople come in to give the doctor some "gift" so he will prescribe their new product. Why do they prescribe new drugs when older generic ones will work as good?? To keep the money flowing into the drug companies coffers.
Nearly all the new drugs still under patent are very expensive where many times cheaper generics will work just as good. There's also the problem with some patients who feel the doctor is not up to date if he doesn't know about the newer drugs being advertised on TV but in reality the doctor may feel that the new drug is not right for you.
Actually, it used to be the patient first, now its the profit first. As such, there are no incentives to look for cures but treatments. That is why antibiotics are not being studied with the same impetus as diabetes treatments, to show an example.
It is now illegal in the U.S. for a drug company representative to give anything more than a pen to a doctor.
Most companies have stopped giving away any take-a-ways - no pens, no notepads, no mousepads, etc.
That is not even half of it! Pharmaceutical coffers would provide all kinds of incentives for the MDs to prescribe their medications including paid vacations, free meals at the most expensive restaurants, office supplies and many other more expensive "gifts" like expensive golf clubs, etc. We, the staff, always enjoyed a good lunch or dinner at Scott's restaurant.
Nina, that may have been true in the past, but it is no longer true.
There is no reason to keep beating the dead horse.
Doctors are not getting gifts now, so there is nothing about which to be up in arms.
Agreed, some of it has been changed as I no longer can obtain Free seroquel coffee cups; however, don't think all has changed as it has not. Just now on the "sly"
Sadly the general public is no longer able to think, remember, or reason. The general public forgets little things like the Government approved phen-fen, vioxx, and a host of other killer drugs.
This is the same general public that appears incapable of reading labels or using common sense when giving OTC medications to children causing accidental overdoses and death.
Sorry to be so harsh but I see it daily.
We are fast approaching "Idiocracy."
It is only going to get worst with declining education standards and substantially limited science our kids are being taught.
Maybe it's because the narrator of all those slick commercials tells them so. And if it's on T.V. or the internet, it must be true. And if they hear it over and over and over, it must be especially true. Ban the infernal drug commercials!
The worst thing that ever could have happened is direct to consumer advertising. We and New Zealand are the only countries that allow it.
Some doctors (not all) are fairly slick to what drug reps push. We nod our heads, say thanks for the pizza, but in the end I still prescribe generics when I can. The public, on the other hand, will always ask for the purple pill, the newest erection drug, etc. We're, of course, not in the business to say no.....we want to keep our customer base happy. If I don't prescribe the Cialis, the guy down the street will.
They were Illegal. Find out who changed the Law.
The FDA spent several years conducting focus groups with consumers, asking them if they want to see ads for drugs, how they would act upon those ads, and what type of content they would like to see.
Overwhelmingly, the consumer has decided that he/she wants to see advertising for prescription drugs. The consumer says that ads for drugs increases his/her healthcare options and better educates him/her about the drugs he/she wants to take.
In the end, the FDA has changed the regulations about drug advertising about 5 or 6 times since the early 1980s. In the beginning, you could only advertise on price alone. Now, you can basically say anything you want that is supported by the prescribing information, as long as the side effects and other legalese is noted.
Most Americans lack the intelligence and education to make any contribution to their own healthcare decisions.
I used to often see people get their prescriptions filled then complain about why the doctor didn't prescribe the one on TV (which would have cost them $50 more, even with insurance coverage).
The classic ad is the one by the pseudo-MD advertising Plavix. At the end he mumbles under his breath that it can cause TTP. TTP is thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. It causes strokes and multiple organ failure and is frequently fatal but none of that is mentioned in the commercials. When new drugs come out, serious side effects are often discovered later. Avoid taking a new drug unless it is absolutely necessary.
Drugs that were common before the 1940s were generally grandfathered into the prescription drug system.
Most doctors and pharmacists agree that if Aspirin were attempted to be brought to the market today, it would not be approved for human use due to the side effects.
Any drug that is taken is going to have side effects. The trick is that most people don't experience any of them.
People get very excited when reading the monographs or listening to the commercials and think "why would anyone take that drug?". But, the side effects are put in the commercials and monographs so that the manufacturers can save their butts. If someone had a problem during a drug trial, it gets listed whether or not the problem can be tied to the drug.
I had a patient one time throw a @!$%# fit in the pharmacy because her doctor prescribed Allegra for her daughter. She had read in the monograph that one of the side effects is "menstrual pain". She then immediately thought that Allegra was a conspiracy from the drug companies against women.
It took over an hour to explain to her that Allegra has so few actual side effects from the drug (dry mouth, mainly) that they end up having to list every problem someone had during the trial. So, since the trial included women, and at least one woman was menstruating and had cramps, "menstrual pain" is listed as a side effect. Someone else had a headache, and so "headache" is listed.
It certainly does not mean that her 8-year old, pre-pubescent daughter is going to suddenly start having menstrual cramps because she is taking Allegra.
So, yes, some people do get nasty side effects from medications. But, millions more people take the same medications without having any problems.
Yes, the Pharmaceutical CEO's and key people with the Medical industry ask our opinion. Actually we have no choice and are forced to receive what they want us to have. I have asked for some older medication and told it wasn't made anymore though the doctor said he thought it was better to. Profit Profit Profit and sometimes scare tatics from the DEA.
It will be made someplace. Keep asking the question because it will be a generic made in India and will be perfectly safe. The cost of these new drugs are way out of line because you have a single source who can charge what ever the market will bear.
The Government VA refuses to pay these prices and does not offer the drug to the Veterans. The price will come down. As long as the drug Companies can bribe Congress to keep the Medicare system (D) from negotiating with the drug companies the cost will remain high. Another Republican (Bush) rip off.
Why can't the Government get the best price. Greed paid for by the Drug Company.
I never prescribe a drug that's been around less than three years unless it's a completely novel drug and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.
The next time your doctor wants to prescribe you something, ask him/her what's the NNT? This is the 'number needed to treat', which is very important when it comes to outcomes.
We prescribe drugs to prevent bad things from happening. You don't take Zocor to just make your cholesterol look good; you take it to prevent either a heart attack or a stroke. Now, in those that have already had an MI or a stroke, the NNT is about 13, which means I need to treat 13 people to prevent one adverse outcome. Not bad odds in the big picture. On the other hand, for someone that's never had an MI or a stroke (this is called primary prevention) the NNT is something around 200-300. I need to treat that many people to prevent a single bad outcome. That's an assload of statin to prevent one bad event.
Another example is Pradaxa, the new drug to treat nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. It's touted to prevent over 50% more strokes than coumadin. Sounds great when you put it that way, but the actual incidence of stroke on coumadin in one study was 0.38%, and 0.12% on Pradaxa. Remember......you can make stats say anything they want. Washington does it all the time, Dumbs and Repugs always spin the numbers to get what they want.
If I have someone that has had an MI or stroke already, prescribing a statin is a no brainer. If it's a fifty year old fat guy with hypertension but he's never had a stroke, I'm focusing more on getting his BP controlled and his fat off than rushing to put him on a statin, because the evidence just isn't there.
BOTTOM LINE: Look for the NNT. It's the most important number you'll need.
Good to know, but I don't trust the data anymore. Much of the drug data comes from "studies" paid for by Big Pharma.
Thank you for that information. I now know what questions to ask. I just had a fight with my husband's Dr. He prescribed a "new, better" medication, not cover by our insurance yet, of course, and major side effects. I called and made them change the Rx to the old drug. Not only was it about a 1000 time cheaper but not side effects. As consumers we need to take responsibility for out health care. We need to ask questions and if necessary get a second opinion.
Thanks Rack.
Excellent information. Great post, thanks.
Great info... Always glad to see a skilled physician prescribe properly! If you were in S FL I'd refer some patients your way.
Same goes for many psychotropics (drugs used for depression, anxiety, etc.). Many of the newer drugs are not as or barely effective as older ones, but the drug companies will push the newer that they make $45 a pill vs. 45 cents.
As far as side effects you can often have a choice among drugs as well, so ask your doctor!! Ex: sexual impotence vs. poor sleep and possible diarrhea. You should be given the ability to make an intelligent choice depending on your life style.
Also, I often explain to patients that just because a side-effect is LISTED doesn't mean you will experience it! Many patients just don't understand that concept and get stuck on one or two effects that occur at 1 in 100,000+ rates. I find it helps to use aspirin as an example to explain side effects, as it has potential benefits if taken properly along with possible severe side effects, especially if not taken properly. Many have taken it before so it helps put things into perspective.
The FDA does not test the new drugs. The Company who is trying to get the drug approved does the testing. Why would a Company admitt to a problem if it would prevent the drug from being approved.
Doctors can prescibe any medication for any symptom so even if the drug is approved for a specific purpose it may not be used for that symptom.
I have afib and my Doctor wanted to put me on Pradaxa and I refused because I have been taking Coumadin for several years and it works just fine. NEW is not always better it just costs more.
Healthcare in the US is a complete lie. But does it even matter? US Consumers don't do a damn thing to make their situation better.
yes, if you have a few bucks, you can fly to another country, where healthcare is still very affordable, out of pocket. I had a sonogram done in shanghai china for 10$ and another in damascus for 10$ also. And these radiologists are western trained. You can get medicine in south america and mexico very cheap. maybe it sounds a little dramatic to skip out of the u.s., but the healthcare costs there is obscene! I know.
Unlike 99% of the studies that MSNBC reports on, this actually seems worth knowing. People go on and on about how the pharmaceutical companies are corrupting the healthcare system, but they apparently put entirely too much faith in those same corporations.
They approve drugs that can have serious side effects, and take darvocet off the market after many, many years because a few people had problems. Those of us who benefitted greatly from the drug are just plain out of luck. Put a warning on the label and give it back. Other pain drugs make me very sick, so now I'm in pain all of the time. Thanks FDA.
I've been saying this for years. Medications have a much longer shelf life than big pharma would like u to know. Its all about them making more money plain and simple. I had a two zpacks that were over five years old and took them when I had a bacterial infection and they worked just fine. Didn't need to see the doctor, didn't need to get another prescription.
That is your government regulations at work. Expiry cant exceed 60 months from API manufacture date, even if no degradation happens. Great majority of medications though do degrade in the time listed thus reducing its effectiveness and safety.
I'm pretty sure that jpsholly didn't actually read the article.
The article doesn't talk about how old the medication in your cabinet is from its date of manufacture.
The article is saying that drugs developed in the early 1980s are often safer and work as well as the drugs developed in 2006.
jpsholly
You do need to learn to read though. Your comment had nothing to do with the articel.
I and so many others that I know hate drug commercials, they are insipid and play to the lowest common denominator. The women who is being treated for depression but needs to add another antidepressant because the one she is being given is not doing the job, so this black cloud follows her around peaking out from under rocks and behind trees ready to pounce on her at any minute. Nothing but fear based advertising and most of those medications after hearing the side effect, you'd have to be a complete idiot to even consider taking it. I have worked in the healthcare field off and on with people who are so overmedicated they can hardly put two words together and have their doctor sit there and tell me that nothing is wrong. Two many of the drugs some of these people were on were contraindicated and not to be taken in tandem. Its all about drug pushing and making money for big pharma and they care little about what they are doing to people's minds and bodies. Our older population is completely overmedicated. We like our older folks dumbed down cause they are easier to deal with when we don't have to listen to them talk about how bad they feel, so let's keep em drugged up and quiet. Its a gd disgrace.
............................and the doctors really like those trips to the Bahamas!
Well, I'm sure it's a coincidence that the pharmaceutical industry spends more than a billion dollars on marketing a year. They certainly wouldn't -purposefully- imply that their new, more expensive drug is more effective than the dependable generics, right?
Right?
People: 1st - drug reps cant provide gifts that are not of "nominal" value to doctors (i.e a pen, note pad, keychain, tiny flashlight etc). That was FDA reg from about 10 years ago when they approved direct advertising (TV and newspaper ads)
2nd - direct to customer advertising is approved here because healthcare is not government controlled like in Canada or the UK. Socialized medicine requires the government to purchase for the population under negotiated bulk pricing (like WalMart) with teh small exception of people that are either allergic or dont respond to treatment. The fact that we have direct to customer advertising is because FDA thought they were benefiting teh patient by empowering them with information. Unfortunately, older drugs with the long track records are not advertised because they are now available in less expensive generic form (made in india, China and who knows where). Law of unintended consequences (and money directing policy)
3rd - put this in perspective. For example hypertension meds, older meds have a longer track record, like Aldomet (from teh early 70's). Only problem with the old one is that causes ED in men. Newer ones may have some other side effects (and definitively be more expensive), but here its up to the patient to pick ED over an unknown in the long haul.
In short, get all the information before making a decision.
All drugs have side effects. Over the years, because of side effects I've experienced, I will take only a few. I will take basic penicillin if I have an infection, and I may take the occasional aspirin. That covers it. I think people are better off without any of this stuff.
People are gullible. Some side effects take years to show up among the population taking the drug. The drug companies don't make money until it's approved. They don't want to test it any longer than they have to. That puts pressure on the FDA to approve them as soon as possible. And if you listen to the conservative politicians running for president, they want the FDA to have LESS power to regulate. Say a brand new car model hits the market. Do you go out and buy it the first year it's built, or wait a year or two, until the "bugs" are out? Of course, you can trade in a crappy car for a new one. You can't trade in your body for a new one.
Maybe this will make more people aware of how dumb Americans really are- if 3rd World status was awarded by IQ the US would easily qualify.