PDA

View Full Version : New diabetes Pill Deemed Dangerous


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Dodger
Thu, Oct-20-05, 11:15
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=1233418

CHICAGO Oct 20, 2005 — A new diabetes pill that appeared headed for federal approval can double the risk for deaths, heart attacks and strokes, according to a study released online Thursday because of public safety concerns.

The drug muraglitazar, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck & Co. under the brand name Pargluva, was endorsed by a Food and Drug Administration panel last month. It is a treatment for Type 2 diabetes, the most common form of the condition that occurs most often in adults who are overweight.

But Cleveland Clinic researchers who analyzed data the FDA made public before the panel vote found that patients taking Pargluva faced double the risk of death, heart attack or stroke, compared with those on dummy pills or a similar drug.

The study was published Thursday morning on the Journal of the American Medical Association's Web site.

The drug's makers said earlier this week that they had received an "approvable" letter from the FDA that also asked for more safety data on the drug's cardiovascular effects.

"It is beyond me why individuals who are supposed to be overseeing the safety of the public would take a chance when it's not necessary," said Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, JAMA's editor in chief. "It's not like there are not other drugs that can be used" for diabetes.

The non-insulin drug is designed to lower blood sugar levels and increase levels of "good" cholesterol in patients with Type 2 diabetes, which affects about 18 million Americans.

DeAngelis said the Cleveland Clinic analysis shows much more study is needed, and she likened the situation to what occurred with Merck's Vioxx. Merck removed the painkiller from the market last year because of evidence linking it with cardiac problems. Critics contend the FDA did not adequately address safety concerns raised about Vioxx.

Co-author Dr. Steven Nissen also called for more studies.

"If our analysis is correct, then this could be a public health catastrophe of the magnitude of what we saw with Vioxx. We had an opportunity in this particular case to stop this from happening before it was ever approved."

DeAngelis said JAMA fast-tracks research studies for online publication only once or twice yearly.

"We worked like heck to get this one out," she said.

The advocacy group Public Citizen also has voiced concerns about approving Pargluva because of safety concerns.

On the Net: JAMA: http://jama.ama-assn.org

nawchem
Thu, Oct-20-05, 14:15
The drug's makers said earlier this week that they had received an "approvable" letter from the FDA that also asked for more safety data on the drug's cardiovascular effects.


Approvable doesn't mean that it has been approved or signal that it has a good chance of being approved. It just means that more data is needed before they approve or shoot you down. My company received an approvable letter from the FDA which lead to the 40% layoff I was in. The stock lost 80% of its value. They have to repeat the entire clinical trial which will take a good 5 years and cost about a billion dollars which they don't have and haven't been able to get a corporate partner to take a chance on.

Public sentiment swings back and forth. During the AIDS crisis there was a strong call to speed up the approval process and to let the public decide if they wanted to take the risk associated with drugs. Some people got hurt by that and now the call is to be super conservative which means drugs will take longer to get to market and will cost more.

Nancy LC
Thu, Oct-20-05, 15:10
I know what you mean, Nancy. I was watching some Parkinson's sufferers who had been on a clinical trial for a drug that is no longer in development. They all felt they had been helped by the drug and they wanted it! But the company for whatever reason decided not to pursue it.

Its a complicated thing.

mio1996
Thu, Oct-20-05, 17:47
IMHO most drugs used for the treatment of type II diabetes are in fact very dangerous--they allow the patient to worsen their condition by eating the same way that made the m sick in the first place. My dad is going through this right now and won't listen to me.

I guess it's easier (and more profitable ;)) to write a scrip for a pill than than to say "You need to eat right or you will die."

Five years ago I was well into prediabetes (hyperinsulinemia and the accompanying hypoglycemia) and now my BG is normal. From everything I have learned on this forum and elsewhere, most type II's can be easily controlled with lc, especially if it is discovered before it becomes very advanced.

It is sad that a high school graduate from the state 49th in education in the United States learned this so easily, but I had I gone to college to for a medical degree, chances are that I never would have learned this :lol:

LC FP
Thu, Oct-20-05, 18:53
It is sad that a high school graduate from the state 49th in education in the United States learned this so easily, but I had I gone to college to for a medical degree, chances are that I never would have learned this

Doctors are trained to be skeptics. And they are. Unless they are talking to drug reps. They KNOW the reps are giving them spin, and pretend not to believe it. But their subsequent behavior shows that it sinks in.

tom sawyer
Fri, Oct-21-05, 11:35
The doctors DO tell their patients to eat right. The patients rarely follow the advice. And therefore the next best thing is a pill. Don't put all the blame on docs, there's plenty of personal responsibility involved here.

LC FP
Fri, Oct-21-05, 14:04
The doctors DO tell their patients to eat right. The patients rarely follow the advice.

Doctors are indoctrinated to "sell" drugs to their patients. 99% of the research they see concerns effects of drugs. The tiny amount of research dealing with diet and lifestyle issues has to be looked for, nobody brings it to anybody's attention. Doctors don't get STATgrams detailing the newest study on diet and exercise. Atkins Nutritionals or Mary Enig or Michael Eades (no offense, Mike) aren't out there visiting doctors offices with slick brochures and broccoli dishes. The AHA bless their heart says the metabolic syndrome is an important concept but they confess ignorance as to its cause.

Big, important people need to step up and tell the truth about nutrition vs drugs, before general doctors and their patients will take notice.

Only then will doctors "sell" nutrition to their patients, with any conviction.