Entries by tag: pharmacology
Here's a list of the excipients in US vaccines, compiled by the CDC and last updated almost a year ago.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf
Three lots of venlaxafine have just been recalled because one bottle contained one pill of a heart drug that could kill a person who didn't need it. The heart drug was an anti-arrhythmic called dofetilide/Tikosyn that could cause your heart to go wonky. The irony strikes me because there is always such noise about Quality Assurance for supplements and herbal medicines. Do people really believe that anything manufactured and packaged by Big Pharm is assuredly Safe? Another thing that strikes me as insane is the fact that brand names of pharmaceuticals are Capitalized. Who decided on That??
Recalled products:
30-count Effexor XR (venlafaxine HCI) 150 mg extended-release capsules
90-count Effexor XR (venlafaxine HCl) 150 mg extended-release capsules
Effexor lot numbers V130142 and V130140, exp October 2015
90-count Greenstone LLC-branded venlafaxine HCl 150 mg extended-release capsules
Greenstone lot number V130014, exp August 2015.
Potentially faulty product should be returned to Stericycle Inc, 1-888-345-0481.
Questions go to Pfizer Medical Information at 1-800-438-1985
Adverse reactions should be reported to www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm.
SOURCE
Medscape at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/821631
Recalled products:
30-count Effexor XR (venlafaxine HCI) 150 mg extended-release capsules
90-count Effexor XR (venlafaxine HCl) 150 mg extended-release capsules
Effexor lot numbers V130142 and V130140, exp October 2015
90-count Greenstone LLC-branded venlafaxine HCl 150 mg extended-release capsules
Greenstone lot number V130014, exp August 2015.
Potentially faulty product should be returned to Stericycle Inc, 1-888-345-0481.
Questions go to Pfizer Medical Information at 1-800-438-1985
Adverse reactions should be reported to www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm.
SOURCE
Medscape at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/821631
The National Institutes of Health, 10 large drug companies and seven nonprofit organizations announced an unconventional partnership on Tuesday intended to speed up development of drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease, Type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.
During the course of a five-year, $230 million effort, the participants will share data in regular conference calls and meetings, working together to determine which findings are likely to lead to effective treatments. They will make their findings and data publicly available.
...What concerns me about this is the emphasis on drugs. There are better ways to adjust physiology than taking in foreign substances. And there are more useful things we could study. Like food, and exercise, and how to they affect our biochemical and electrical mileau. Sex, we should throw more money at studying sex and how it affects neurotransmitters. On the effects of chewing gum and on understanding the endocrinology of sexual preference. And on why our hearts slow down as we age, and a million other questions. I'm just curious: I really want to know the answers. I wish that the money spent on medical research was directed more by altruism and less by profit motive.
SOURCE
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/health/nih-joins-drug-makers-and-nonprofits-on-stubborn-diseases.html
During the course of a five-year, $230 million effort, the participants will share data in regular conference calls and meetings, working together to determine which findings are likely to lead to effective treatments. They will make their findings and data publicly available.
...What concerns me about this is the emphasis on drugs. There are better ways to adjust physiology than taking in foreign substances. And there are more useful things we could study. Like food, and exercise, and how to they affect our biochemical and electrical mileau. Sex, we should throw more money at studying sex and how it affects neurotransmitters. On the effects of chewing gum and on understanding the endocrinology of sexual preference. And on why our hearts slow down as we age, and a million other questions. I'm just curious: I really want to know the answers. I wish that the money spent on medical research was directed more by altruism and less by profit motive.
SOURCE
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/health/nih-joins-drug-makers-and-nonprofits-on-stubborn-diseases.html
There are no poisons, only poisonous doses.
--Paracelsus
This is an old quote, but it comes fresh on my reading today that the FDA has reduced its recommended dosing for Zolpidem, that is, Ambien. Turns out, many people still had a lot of the drug in their blood in the morning, when they needed to function. Of course we the people already knew that. Women process the drug more slowly. And it also interacts in an unpleasant way with opiates. Many times modern medicine is guilty of overdosing people, especially as we get older and our liver and kidney function decline. So when in doubt, take the smallest possible dose, and if you're into homeopathy, take none and call it some.
--Paracelsus
This is an old quote, but it comes fresh on my reading today that the FDA has reduced its recommended dosing for Zolpidem, that is, Ambien. Turns out, many people still had a lot of the drug in their blood in the morning, when they needed to function. Of course we the people already knew that. Women process the drug more slowly. And it also interacts in an unpleasant way with opiates. Many times modern medicine is guilty of overdosing people, especially as we get older and our liver and kidney function decline. So when in doubt, take the smallest possible dose, and if you're into homeopathy, take none and call it some.
Here: https://www.rxisk.org/Default.aspx
Looks like an interesting new site. Not sure how scientific or clinically useful it will turn out to be.
Looks like an interesting new site. Not sure how scientific or clinically useful it will turn out to be.
Comment on the diabetes "megatrials" from Leszek Czupryniak, President of the Polish Diabetes Professional Association:
The results, as you must have heard and you probably might remember, have been conflicting. In some of the studies, intensive glycemic control provided some benefit, especially in terms of microvascular complications. In other trials, especially in the ACCORD study, intensive glycemic control was clearly detrimental in terms of increasing the risk for macrovascular complications.
The first interpretation of these results was basically unfavorable toward intensive diabetes control. And we diabetologists were afraid for a while that perhaps what we were trying to do on an everyday basis was actually harming our patients. However, by looking in more detail at the results -- and this is the issue largely discussed these days in Dubai -- now we know that one [patient with] diabetes is not equal to another [patient with] diabetes. We should no longer adopt one target for [the whole] diabetes population; we should be able to differentiate among patients.
In my opinion -- but not only mine, it has been a shared view during this meeting -- the final interpretation of these studies is rather striking, because now we clearly know that intensive diabetes control is absolutely beneficial for subjects who have just diabetes with no complications, who are relatively young, and who have had diabetes for a shorter time, less than 5 years.
SOURCE
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/755416?src=mp&spon=22
The results, as you must have heard and you probably might remember, have been conflicting. In some of the studies, intensive glycemic control provided some benefit, especially in terms of microvascular complications. In other trials, especially in the ACCORD study, intensive glycemic control was clearly detrimental in terms of increasing the risk for macrovascular complications.
The first interpretation of these results was basically unfavorable toward intensive diabetes control. And we diabetologists were afraid for a while that perhaps what we were trying to do on an everyday basis was actually harming our patients. However, by looking in more detail at the results -- and this is the issue largely discussed these days in Dubai -- now we know that one [patient with] diabetes is not equal to another [patient with] diabetes. We should no longer adopt one target for [the whole] diabetes population; we should be able to differentiate among patients.
In my opinion -- but not only mine, it has been a shared view during this meeting -- the final interpretation of these studies is rather striking, because now we clearly know that intensive diabetes control is absolutely beneficial for subjects who have just diabetes with no complications, who are relatively young, and who have had diabetes for a shorter time, less than 5 years.
SOURCE
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/755416?src=mp&spon=22
The drug is also known as Bevacizumab. It's not approved but Medicare is still paying for it. It's the #1 selling cancer drug on the planet, made by Genetech, Inc that is owned by Roche. Why was it removed from FDA approval? Because there's no proof that it extends life at all, and has potentially life-threatening side effects. The side effects possible include severe hypertension, hemorrhage, heart attack and failure, and gastrointestinal perforations. Avastin is considered a last ditch option for metastatic breast cancer patients.
Why was it approved in the first place? Your guess is as good as mine. Money, probably. The cost for a year's treatment is $100,000, and it is covered by medicare. How's that for a bailout? That bailout of course is for the pharmaceutical companies. Genetech, and a bunch of patients, are lobbying hard to keep the drug as an option. Genetech says it does work, when combined with traditional chemo, and so is appealing the FDA decision. I wonder how much cashola the FDA will get back during the appeals process. The FDA approval happened while studies were in progress to prove its efficacy--but those studies turned out to prove no such thing.
SOURCES
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fda-says-avastin-should-no-longer-be-used-for-breast-cancer-citing-no-proof-it-extends-life/2011/11/18/gIQAHJmHYN_story.html?wpisrc=al_national
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/171447/20110629/avastin-breast-cancer-genentech-fda-drug-roche.htm
Why was it approved in the first place? Your guess is as good as mine. Money, probably. The cost for a year's treatment is $100,000, and it is covered by medicare. How's that for a bailout? That bailout of course is for the pharmaceutical companies. Genetech, and a bunch of patients, are lobbying hard to keep the drug as an option. Genetech says it does work, when combined with traditional chemo, and so is appealing the FDA decision. I wonder how much cashola the FDA will get back during the appeals process. The FDA approval happened while studies were in progress to prove its efficacy--but those studies turned out to prove no such thing.
SOURCES
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fda-says-avastin-should-no-longer-be-used-for-breast-cancer-citing-no-proof-it-extends-life/2011/11/18/gIQAHJmHYN_story.html?wpisrc=al_national
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/171447/20110629/avastin-breast-cancer-genentech-fda-drug-roche.htm
Cool: Google Flu Trends
w/ flu call musculoskeletal complaints concommitants
( notes on week 4 Taylor lectureCollapse )
w/ flu call musculoskeletal complaints concommitants
( notes on week 4 Taylor lectureCollapse )
Comments