Categories

-

Multiple Medication Use in General Practice and Psychiatry: So What?

August 25, 2006

Multiple medication use is the rule rather than exception in modern therapeutics. Factors affecting the recent increase in utilization of medications include the growth of third-party insurance coverage for drugs; increased marketing efforts to promote new medications to prescribers and directly to consumers; and clinical guidelines recommending long-term treatment for chronic conditions such as high cholesterol, acid reflux disease, heart disease, diabetes, asthma and clinical depression.

This issue is particularly important for those treating patients with psychiatric illness. According to the data from the 1989 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, patients seen by a psychiatrist were six times more likely to receive multiple psychotropic medications, as compared with those seen by a primary care physician (Nichol et al., 1995). A recent pharmacoepidemiology study found Veterans Affairs Administration outpatients on antidepressants were on more medications than age-matched and gender controls not on antidepressants (Preskorn, 2005).

Multiple medication use poses questions for clinicians: What is the extent of polypharmacy in general practice and psychiatry? What factors impact the increase in polypharmacy seen today? What should the clinician consider when treating a patient taking two or more medications concurrently?

The Incidence of Polypharmacy

According to the annual report, “Health, United States, 2004,” prescription drug use is rising among people of all ages, and increases with age (National Center for Health Statistics, 2004). Almost half of those over 18 in the United States are taking at least one prescription medicine, and one in six is taking three or more. These percentages are substantially higher for Americans 65 or older (Table).

The reason is, at least in part, the increasing ability to treat and even prevent chronic illnesses. As a result, patients accumulate drugs as they age and are on them for years, during which time other drugs can be added and stopped. Prescription drug use is on the rise, and there are an increasing number of medications available for the chronic treatment of hypertension, diabetes and hyperlipidemia, the three leading causes of death in United States (National Center for Health Statistics, 2004).

The National Center for Health Statistics (2004) reported a number of data regarding the increasing incidence of polypharmacy. Among its findings: The use of multiple psychoactive drugs is an increasingly common practice in both primary care and psychiatric practice; the use of antidepressants in the U.S. adult population almost tripled between 1988 to 1994 and 1999 to 2000; 10% of women age 18 or older and 4% of men now take antidepressants; three times as many white adults in the United States took antidepressants as did blacks or Mexican Americans in the most recent year for which data are available. There is also an increased use of specific psychoactive medications in younger patients, and use is also increasing among younger patients including psychoactive medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and antidepressants (National Center for Health Statistics, 2004).

Factors Affecting Polypharmacy

A number of risk factors in primary care and psychiatric practice may lead to the increasing incidence of multiple medication use.

Comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions. Patients with psychiatric disorders may have significant comorbidity with medical conditions including HIV infection, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, liver disease, renal failure and many more. So overall, psychiatric illness increases a person’s risk of developing a number of general medical conditions (Goldman, 2000). The Figure shows the prevalence of major depression in specific medically ill populations.

Patients with mood and anxiety disorders have also been found to utilize more health care services than those without these disorders and thus to have higher incidence and greater complexity of concomitant medication usage. Patients with substance abuse or dependence are another group at increased risk for drug-drug interactions (DDIs) resulting from polypharmacy (George and Krystal, 2000).

Increase in number of approved psychoactive drugs. With more drugs approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, there is more potential for drug interactions. Frye et al. (2000) found a substantial increase in polypsychopharmacy from 1974 to 1996. Since 1990, the FDA has approved more than 20 new psychotropics, including antidepressants, antipsychotics, and medications for bipolar disorder, dementia, insomnia, sexual dysfunction, narcolepsy and ADHD (Table 2).

Increase in use of nonprescription drugs. Many well-educated patients increasingly turn to alternative medicine because they find such therapies more congruent with personal values and holistic views of health care (Astin, 1998). A wealth of such alternative medicines is available, including prescription drugs, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines, herbal preparations, illicit substances and dietary supplements. Adverse drug reactions stemming from concurrent use of such alternative medications with prescription drugs can present in almost any way clinically imaginable, from a sudden, catastrophic adverse event to a mild increase in nuisance side effects. Drug-drug interactions can also present as a loss of efficacy on a previously effective drug regimen, withdrawal symptoms, emergence of a new illness or worsening of an existing one.

For example, ibuprofen, an OTC analgesic, can cause serious and even life-threatening elevations in lithium (Eskalith, Lithobid) levels by affecting its rate of tubular reabsorption (Ragheb et al., 1980). St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) is a substantial inducer of CYP3A and can accelerate the clearance of oral contraceptives, potentially rendering them ineffective (Hall et al., 2003). Smoking can induce the metabolism of drugs such as clozapine (Clozaril), which are normally cleared by smoking-induced CYP1A2 (Hasegawa et al., 1993). In addition, a case report describes clozapine-induced seizures in a man when he gave up smoking (McCarthy, 1994).

Increased Internet availability. It is now common for patients to buy medications on the Internet for general medical and psychiatric disorders. In 2004, the FDA reiterated its warning against online drug purchases after it purchased so-called generic versions of sildenafil (Viagra), atorvastatin (Lipitor) and zolpidem (Ambien) from a Canadian-advertised Web site. The FDA reported that all three were “fake, substandard and potentially dangerous” (Rados, 2004). Clinicians should discourage this method of obtaining medications until approved by the FDA.

Syndromic nature of psychiatric disorders. Common psychiatric conditions such as mood, psychotic and anxiety disorders usually have multiple signs and symptoms involving more than one bodily system, treatment of which can lead to multiple medication use. Nichol et al. (1995) found that patients diagnosed with mania were four times more likely to receive multiple psychotropic medications, and those diagnosed with schizophrenia were three times more likely. There is also a substantial overlap in the diagnostic and ancillary features outlined in DSM-IV for bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder and borderline personality disorder (Preskorn and Baker, 2002). A patient with borderline personality disorder may be treated with lithium for mood lability, an antidepressant for depressive symptoms, an anxiolytic for anxiety symptoms and an antipsychotic for brief psychotic symptoms.

Treatment of side effects. Treatment for a primary illness or disorder sometimes produces side effects that must be treated by the use of adjunctive pharmacotherapy. For example, benztropine (Cogentin) may be used to treat the extrapyramidal symptoms of antipsychotics. Antinausea medication may be given to a patient receiving cancer chemotherapy. Increasingly common is the treatment of metabolic syndrome (i.e., hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, diabetes and hypertension) resulting from treatment with some atypical antipsychotics (Toalson et al., 2004).

Increased prescription medicine coverage. Private health insurance covered almost 50% of prescription drug costs in 2002, as compared to 25% in 1990 (National Center for Health Statistics, 2004). When cost is not an issue, use goes up.

(While the percentage of prescription drugs has increased, the amount of shared costs shifted to patients through co-payments to third-party health insurance providers has also seen a steady increase. The jury is still out on how this impacts the cost of care. For example, many formularies disallow newer medications, while providing increased coverage for older drugs. At least in the case of antipsychotics, the side-effect burden of older drugs makes their use less preferred. Furthermore, some studies have shown that even a modest increase in co-payments can have a significant impact on patient use of prescription medications. The interested reader may want to see Nelson et al. [1984] and Stuart and Zacker [1999]—Ed.)

Lack of communication. In the absence of a primary provider to coordinate drug therapy, multiple doctors often prescribe prescription drugs to the same patient (Colley and Lucas, 1993; Rolland and Verdaris, 2003).

Decreased use of behavioral and social techniques. Primary care physicians may never have been trained in psychosocial intervention for patients suffering from psychiatric disorders and frequently they do not have time to do them. Mintz et al. (2004) found that psychiatrists practicing under utilization-management protocols of managed care plans may also not have time to discuss behavioral techniques with their patients (for example, encouraging proper sleep hygiene in patients complaining of insomnia) and often instead prescribe a medication. Once a medication is prescribed, the psychiatrist may be reluctant to take their patient off the medications, especially if they are doing well (Mintz et al., 2004).

Aging. Older patients take more medications in general, and this situation is compounded if patients have a psychiatric illness because adverse DDIs involving these medications can mimic psychiatric symptoms. For example, geriatric patients frequently are exposed to a number of highly anticholinergic drugs including antispasmodics, tricyclic antidepressants (e.g., amitriptyline), antihistamines, anti-Parkinson’s drugs, antipsychotics and OTC cold medicines, which if used in combination with other drugs can produce delirium (Beresin, 1988; Cadieux, 1989). Antihypertensives are the most likely to induce a depression in the elderly. Common offenders are methyldopa (Aldomet, Amodopa), propranolol (Inderal), clonidine (Catapress), guanethidine (Ismelin) and reserpine (Serpalan, Serpasil) (Marsh, 1997). The akathisia of antipsychotic agents or the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors can resemble anxiety in the elderly (Marsh, 1997). Other commonly prescribed drugs that can produce anxiety symptoms in elderly patients are bronchodilators, calcium-channel blockers, steroids, OTC preparations with adrenergic-like agents and antihistaminic agents (Cadieux, 1989; Marsh, 1997).

Internet Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at reasanoble prices.Internet Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order pharmacy via internet.

Treatment Considerations

Polypharmacy is associated with increased health risks and costs (Preskorn, 2005; Silkey et al., 2005), and can result in potential pharmacokinetically and/or pharmacodynamically mediated DDIs. These, in turn, set the stage for increased vulnerability to side effects, increased number of prescription drugs used, compliance problems, increased patient morbidity and mortality, and increased health care costs. Clinicians must keep in mind a number of factors.

Potential DDIs. A DDI is a measurable change in magnitude, nature or duration of the action of one drug as a result of the presence of another drug (Khan and Preskorn, 2003). Drug-drug interactions are not limited to or determined by therapeutic class. Individual patient response to a given combination of drugs may be influenced by three main factors: pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and biological variability between patients. Pharmacodynamics refers to a drug’s affinity for the site of action in the body, or its biochemical and physiological effect and mechanism of action. Pharmackinetics refers to the concentration of the drug at the site of action, or its action in the body over a period of time, including the processes of absorption, distribution, localization in tissues, biotransformation and excretion. Biological variability refers to the fact that a given drug may not produce identical effects in different patients and may be influenced by such factors as the patient’s genotype, age, environment and the presence of disease. The presence of other drugs can quantitatively or qualitatively alter the patient’s response to a medication by altering its pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic properties. The clinician should weigh these factors carefully when deciding on the treatment for their patient, including what drug to prescribe and at what doses.

Intestinal motility. Drug absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion can be altered by changes in gastric pH or gastrointestinal motility, including gastric emptying. Examples include pyloric stenosis, gastroparesis secondary to diabetes mellitus, systemic sclerosis, postvagotomy states, celiac disease, Whipple’s disease, Crohn’s disease and therapy with anticholinergic agents. Also gastric and intestinal surgeries and/or radiation will affect absorption of drugs. Likewise, lower gastric acidity produced by proton pump inhibitors like omeprazole (Prilosec), or by histamine H2 receptor blockers like cimetidine (Tagamet), or by antacids can increase absorption of weak bases such as tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines and some antipsychotics (Janicak et al., 2001; Khan and Preskorn, 2003).

Liver disease. Most psychoactive medications require oxidative metabolism as a necessary step in their eventual elimination, which principally occurs in the liver. For this reason, diseases that lead to hepatic insufficiency (like cirrhosis, viral infections, collagen vascular diseases and metabolic disorders) can significantly reduce the clearance of drugs. This effect can be compounded by the concurrent use of multiple medications. For example, diazepam (Valium) requires extensive biotransformation as a necessary step in its elimination, but can persist in the body in case of liver disease (Janicak et al., 2001). On the other hand, the clearance of drugs that undergo only glucuronidation is not affected by even significant liver damage. For example, all of the 3-hydroxybenzodiazepines (clonazepam [Klonopin], lorazepam [Ativan], oxazepam [Serax] and temazepam [Restoril]) can be readily cleared by patients with normal renal function (Kahn and Preskorn, 2003).

Liver diseases can alter plasma proteins that may significantly affect free drug concentration and distribution and hence concentration at the site of action, thus altering the magnitude of the drug’s effect. As the majority of psychiatric medications are highly protein bound, protein binding can affect therapeutic drug monitoring results.

Renal disease. While most drugs require oxidative metabolism to be converted into polar metabolites as a necessary step in their elimination, the final route of elimination is via the kidneys. Classic examples of psychiatric drugs cleared principally, if not exclusively, via the kidneys include lithium and gabapentin (Neurontin), according to the PDR (2004). Slow dose titration and careful monitoring of blood levels may be necessary when prescribing medications dependent on renal filtration in patients with significant renal disease.

Medications used for physical/medical conditions can also affect psychiatric medications. For example, ritonavir (Norvir), a protease inhibitor used in the treatment of HIV and AIDS, is a significant inhibitor of CYP3A4. This means it can increase levels of certain heterocyclic antidepressants (e.g., imipramine [Tofranil], clomipramine [Anafranil] and amitriptyline), triazolobenzodiazepines (e.g., alprazolam [Xanax] and triazolam [Halcion]), zolpidem (Ambien), methadone and clozapine if taken concurrently (Flexner, 1998). Anti-migraine drugs (e.g., sumatriptan [Imitrex], zolmitriptan [Zomig] and rizatriptan [Maxalt]) are all 5-HT1 agonists and can produce serotonin syndrome if used in combination with SSRIs like sertraline (Zoloft), and monoamine oxidase inhibitors like phenelzine (Nardil). Itraconazole (Sporanox), an antifungal agent, is also a potent inhibitor of CYP3A4 and can increase levels of buspirone (BuSpar) and haloperidol (Haldol) (Goldman, 2000). Rifampin (Rifadin, Rimactane), an anti-tuberculosis agent, induces CYP3A4 and CYP1A2, which can lead to decreased levels of clozapine, buspirone and zaleplon (Sonata) when taken concurrently with any one of them (Goldman, 2000).

Older patients.Elderly patients are particularly susceptible to the effects of polypharmacy as aging is associated with diminution in the functional capacity of many organ systems including the cardiovascular system, the liver, the kidneys and the brain. The latter includes mental slowing due the development of numerous neuronal degenerative diseases, particularly including Alzheimer’s disease. For these reasons clinicians should be familiar with the physical status of elderly patients before prescribing any psychoactive medications.

Noncompliance. Noncompliance is common when the patient is taking one medication and even more prevalent when several medications are taken concurrently. Col et al. (1990) found that the complexity of medication regimen (as reflected in greater number of doses per day and greater number of both scheduled and as needed medications) was directly related with an increased risk of noncompliance, contributed to a more frequent need for hospitalization.

Fatal outcomes. Fatal drug reactions can result from the combined ingestion of tranylcypromine (Parnatte) and imipramine, resulting in hyperpyrexia, excruciating headache, palpitations, muscle rigidity, opisthotonus, cyanosis and convulsions (Otte et al., 2003). Combination of MAOIs and meperidine (Demerol) can result in excitement, muscle rigidity, hyperpyrexia, flushing, sweating, unconsciousness and respiratory depression (Meyer and Halfin, 1981; Miller, 2004). Another fatal combination can be MAOIs and SSRIs, e.g., fluoxetine (Prozac). It can result in the development of serotonin syndrome with chills, confusion, sedation, exhaustion, hyperpyrexia, tachycardia, muscle rigidity and coma (Feighner et al., 1990). Pimozide (Orap) is partly metabolized through CYP3A and clarithromycin (Biaxin) substantially inhibits this enzyme, resulting in serious cardiotoxicity.

Health care cost. Increased costs can result from the costs of each individual drug in the patient’s regimen and from DDIs. These DDIs can present in a multitude of ways ranging from nuisance to more serious adverse effects, which can mimic the development of a new disease or the worsening of an existing disease. DDIs can of course result in lawsuits, which further increase health care costs. Johnson and Bootman (1995) found that morbidity and mortality related to drug therapy in ambulatory patients in the United States costs $76.6 billion annually.

Although prescription drugs comprise only one-tenth of total national medical expenses, they remain the fastest growing expenditure (National Center for Health Statistics, 2004). In 2002, the overall cost of prescription medications and medical supplies rose above 5%, but increased use of prescription drugs pushed total expenditure for prescription medications up 15.3%. The United States spent 14.9% of its gross domestic product on health care in 2002, up from 14.1% in 2001. Only two other countries, Switzerland and Germany, spent as much as 11% of their gross domestic produce in health care in 2001.

Conclusion

Patients with psychiatric illnesses may be at higher risk for the development of certain medical problems because of the physiologic derangements of their psychiatric conditions, or as a result of the somatic treatment used to help them, hence at risk for drug-drug reactions from taking several medications concurrently. Psychopharmacological treatment of psychiatric disorders can be successfully and safely accomplished in the medically ill taking multiple medications when the psychiatrist is cognizant of potential difficulties stemming from both their different medical illnesses and the medications the patient is taking for the treatments of those illnesses by following the principles outlined in (Table 3). Each patient should be assessed for potential disease-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes altering drug distribution, metabolism and clearance, as well as possible drug interactions and vulnerability to the side effects.

As the use of multiple drugs increases and drug expenditures rise, trade-offs between the cost and benefits of medications are becoming major clinical and policy issues. As a result of all of these variables, there is a growing and urgent need for further research to evaluate the potential risks associated with polypharmacy, such as developing drug classifications or groupings based on pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics. Research can identify the most prevalent drug regimens and evaluate their potential to interact. There is a clear need to implement online drug screening or computerized drug alert systems. Expert consensus guidelines regarding specific combinations can be developed.

Posted by toshko under Zoloft News | Comments (0)

 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Common Drugs Fight Postpartum Depression

August 24, 2006

Two widely used antidepressants, nortriptyline and Zoloft (sertraline), are safe and effective for treating postpartum depression, a new study finds.The University of Pittsburgh study is one of the first to compare the effectiveness of two classes of antidepressants — a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (Zoloft) and a tricyclic (nortriptyline) — in treating the common, debilitating condition.

“We’ve been treating postpartum depression based on the assumption that drugs that work for a woman with depression under usual circumstances, will work for a women who experiences depression after giving birth, but there have not been studies that provide scientific proof that this was an effective and safe course of treatment,” Dr. Katherine L. Wisner, professor of psychiatry and obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, said in a prepared statement.

The study started with 109 participants, randomly selected to take either nortriptyline or Zoloft. Of those 109 women, 95 provided response data at four weeks, 83 provided data at eight weeks, and 29 completed between 20 and 24 weeks of the study.

Both drugs produced similar results.

Discount Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at discount prices including free shipping.Discount Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order discount pharmacy online.

By week four, 46 of the participants taking Zoloft had responded with a reduction in depressive symptoms and 27 percent had remitted (few depressive symptoms), while 56 percent of those taking nortriptyline responded and 30 percent remitted.

Of the 29 women who remained in the study until 20 to 24 weeks, 93 percent taking Zoloft responded and 73 percent remitted, while 100 percent taking nortriptyline responded and 79 percent remitted.

Both drugs produced similar improvements in psychosocial functioning, and neither drug was superior to the other in treating aggressive obsessional thoughts, the study said.

The findings were published in the August issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.

The Zoloft used in the study was donated by the drug’s maker, Pfizer, but the drug company did not provide any direct financial support for the study, which was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

Wisner is a member of Pfizer’s speaker’s bureau and has a grant from Pfizer to study one of its other products. Wisner is also a member of the speaker’s bureau for GlaxoSmithKline.

Posted by toshko under Zoloft News | Comments (0)

 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Zoloft does not prevent post-stroke depression

August 19, 2006

In non-depressed patients who have recently suffered a stroke, prophylactic treatment with Zoloft (also called sertraline) does not prevent the onset of depression in the following 6 months, according to results of a study.Depression after stroke is common, affecting approximately 1 in every 3 survivors, note Dr. Osvaldo P. Almeida and colleagues from the University of Western Australia, Perth.

They examined whether Zoloft started within 2 weeks of a stroke and continued for 24 weeks reduced the incidence of depression in 111 non-depressed stroke patients. Fifty-five stroke patients took Zoloft (50 mg once daily) and 56 took a placebo.

Internet Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at reasanoble prices.Internet Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order pharmacy via internet.

The patients had a mean age of 67.5 years. Of the 111 subjects, seven suffered hemorrhagic stroke caused by bleeding in the brain and 104 suffered ischemic stroke caused by a blockage.

“By the end of the 24-week trial, the proportion of participants who were depressed was 21.6 percent (11/51) among patients assigned placebo and 16.7 percent (8/48) among those assigned sertraline,” Dr. Almeida’s team reports.

Overall, 29 patients (51.8 percent) in the placebo group and 26 (47.3 percent) in the sertraline group discontinued trial medication by week 24. This was mostly due to perceived side effects or because antidepressant medication was introduced.

“New pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies need to be developed,” conclude the researchers, “to reduce the health and financial burden associated with depression after stroke.”

Posted by toshko under Zoloft News | Comments (0)

 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Teva’s margin on Zoloft will be low

August 15, 2006

With no last minute creative moves forthcoming from Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE; LSE: PFZ), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Nasdaq: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) announced yesterday that it began marketing of its generic version of the antidepressant drug Zoloft.Teva obtained approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the sale and marketing of its generic version, Sertraline, more than two weeks ago, but only launched the product yesterday. In contrast, Teva’s largest launch in its history, the generic version of Merck (NYSE: MRK)’s cholesterol drug, Zocor, was made on the day the final approval was granted.

Leader Capital Markets analyst Uri Hershkovitz says he believes there were three reasons why the launch of generic Zoloft was delayed. “First there was the labeling. There was probably a small issue to cleared up about this, and this is the official reason. Secondly, there was the issue of the approved generics. Pfizer subsidiary Greenstone Limited is also going to launch this version and Teva wanted to surprise it.

Discount Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at discount prices including free shipping.Discount Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order discount pharmacy online.

“If Greenstone doesn’t know exactly when Teva will launch its version, it can’t make adequate preparations for intense competition on the first day. So Teva dispatches dozens of trucks containing a quantity large enough to last two months, and wins a share that is almost 100% of the market. Greenstone will only be able to enter later on. The third reason, which I also think was not the main one, was the shifting of profit from the second to the third quarter. This factor hovers in the background to a certain extent.â€?

Hershkovitz expects the generic version of Zoloft to contribute $200 million to Teva’s revenue during the exclusivity period, with earnings per share of $0.10-0.12, or profit of $83.5-100 million. “Obviously, the drug is profitable but at a lower rate than that of Zocor,� he explains. “This is because Teva got Zoloft as a result of its acquisition of Ivax. It came together with an agreement on active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) production with Indian pharmaceutical firm Cipla, so Teva will not benefit from the profitability inherent in the vertical integration that it usually has with its own API division. Additionally, it should be remembered that the Zoloft launch was also the outcome of a compromise between Ivax and Pfizer, so Pfizer will receive royalties on the sales of the drug.�

Posted by toshko under Zoloft News | Comments (0)

 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

A Caution For Those Taking St. John’s Wort During Pregnancy And Breast Feeding

August 11, 2006

St. John’s wort (hypericum perforatum) is one of the five best-selling herbs in the United States. It is used by many to treat the symptoms of depression, and many prefer it to prescription medications such as Paxil® and Zoloft. However, the herb has been the subject of growing concern about its interaction with birth control pills, the blood thinner warfarin, and cyclosporin, a medication used with those who have received organ transplants. A new study examining its effect on pregnant women and those who are breastfeeding contributes to the evidence that the product should be used with caution.A New Study
The new study, entitled “St. John’s Wort (hypericum perforatum): Is It Safe During Pregnancy, Breastfeeding and With Prescription Medications? A Systematic Review,� will soon be published in the Canadian Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. It is one in a series that systematically reviews the evidence relating to the safety of herbs commonly used during pregnancy and lactation.

The study was conducted by a team of Canadian researchers consisting of the principal investigator Jean Jacques Dugoua, ND, MSc (Cand.), University of Toronto, Sick Kids Hospital, Toronto Western Hospital, Truestar Health and Wellness Clinic, and the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, CN; and co-investigators Edward Mills, DPH, MSc., PhD (Cand.), Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Ontario, CN; Dan Perri, MD, BscPharm, FRCP(C), Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Toronto, Toronto, CN; and Gideon Koren, MD, The Motherisk Program, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, CN.

Dr. Dugoua is presenting the team’s findings at the 21st Annual Meeting of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians being held August 9-12, 2006 at the Oregon Convention Center, Portland, OR.

Methodology
The aim of the study was to systematically review the literature for evidence on the use, safety, and pharmacology of St. John’s wort focusing on issues pertaining to pregnancy and lactation. The investigators searched seven databases for reports relating to the herb. The databases included AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Library, MedLine, Natural Database, and Natural Standard. Each database was examined in duplicate for data from its inception. Unpublished research and bibliographies were also included. Data were compiled according to the grade of evidence found.

Internet Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at reasanoble prices.Internet Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order pharmacy via internet.

Results
The researchers found varying levels of scientific evidence on the efficacy of use for different conditions; low-level evidence of harm during pregnancy; and strong evidence of side effects during lactation. As St. John’s wort interacts with a number of medications due to its effect on cytochrome P450 enzymes, this may account for some of the findings.

Conclusions
The researchers concluded:

  • Caution is warranted when using St. John’s wort during pregnancy and lactation.
  • St. John’s wort may interact with medications prescribed during pregnancy.
  • During pregnancy, a case study and some animal studies reported lower birth weights with use of St. John’s wort.
  • Strong scientific evidence showed that St. John’s wort consumption during lactation did not affect maternal milk production nor affect infant weight, but may cause colic, drowsiness or lethargy.
  • St. John’s wort showed strong scientific evidence of being an effective aid in combating mild to moderate depression and low-level evidence for other conditions.

Recommendations
The authors urge women not to assume that because herbs are labeled “natural� that they are safe. They recommend all pregnant and lactating women consult a licensed, health care professional before consuming any herb or medicine in general, and St. John’s wort in particular. Finally, they recommend that any woman experiencing depression let their physician know immediately.
The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) was founded in 1985 to provide alternative methods for healing human diseases and disorders than have been traditionally offered in the United States. Members of the AANP must have graduated from one of North America’s six accredited graduate schools of naturopathic medicine.

Posted by toshko under Zoloft News | Comments (0)

 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Two-pronged approach best for hair-pulling disorder

August 10, 2006

A new study suggests that behavioral therapy plus medication is the most effective approach to treating trichotillomania, a psychiatric disorder characterized by obsessive hair pulling.”The ultimate take-home message is that the combination is better than either one alone,” Dr. Darin D. Dougherty of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, the study’s lead author, told Reuters Health.

Trichotillomania is related to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and if left untreated generally does not improve on its own, Dougherty noted in an interview. The disorder can interfere with a person’s personal relationships, and lead people to avoid social and public activities.

Discount Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at discount prices including free shipping.Discount Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order discount pharmacy online.

A special type of cognitive behavioral therapy known as habit reversal training (HRT) has been shown to be effective for treating the disorder, as have drugs used for treating depression and OCD known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). At his center, Dougherty said, doctors generally use both treatments in patients with trichotillomania.

To investigate whether the combination might be more effective than either treatment alone, the researchers randomly assigned a group of trichotillomania patients to the SSRI Zoloft (also called sertraline) or a placebo. Those who did not show improvement after 12 weeks were given HRT along with the drug for an additional 10 weeks.

Of the 24 patients who completed the study, 13 received Zoloft or HRT only and 11 received both.

While improvements were seen in both groups, they were significantly greater among the patients given Zoloft plus HRT.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, the researchers failed to see significant effects of treatment on patients’ quality of life or function, but this, they say, is likely because of the small size of the study

Posted by toshko under Zoloft News | Comments (0)

 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Texas mom starts anti-depressants awareness group

August 6, 2006

DALLAS - Three weeks ago, Valeria Maxon of Mansfield allegedly drowned her one year old son in a backyard hot tub.

In 2004, police say Dena Schlosser cut off her baby girl’s arms in McKinney.

A Tyler jury found Deanna Laney guilty of stoning her two young sons to death.

And in 2001, Andrea Yates confessed to using a bathtub to drown her five children in Houston.

They are all Texas cases of mothers accused of murdering their children.

Shortly after giving birth to Isaac, Amy Philo of Frisco believed she could have been the next mom to make news.

Internet Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at reasanoble prices.Internet Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order pharmacy via internet.

“I had a hallucination where I was walking past the stairs to put the baby down and I like look over and I see myself throw the baby down the stairs,” Philo said.

She described, in disturbing detail, images she experienced about taking her son’s life and her own.

“I could visualize myself literally like walking in front of a moving truck on the highway,” she explained.

Isaac is now two-years-old, and Philo is mentally sound.

Recently, she announced another new arrival.  Her new “baby� is called C.H.A.A.D.A., or “Children and Adults Against Drugging America.�  It’s a national organization with about 150 members, so far.

Through an awareness Web site, members communicate about anti-depressants on the market including Paxil, Cymbalta, Effexor, Prozac and Zoloft.

Philo was prescribed one of the drugs after having a panic attack shortly after her son’s birth.  She believes her anxiety was brought on by abnormal thyroid levels.

“Thyroid, I’m finding, is the number-one cause of depression,” said Dr. Mary Ann Block of Hurst.

The doctor went on to say that treating a woman “with an anti-depressant when what she really has is a hormone imbalance, should be criminal, in my opinion.”

Dr. Block said depression is really a symptom of something else, and doctors need to spend more time in the examining room with patients instead of being quick to prescribe drugs.  She is known nationally for her views on anti-depressants, and she is writing a book entitled, Just Because You’re Depressed, Doesn’t Mean You Have Depression .

Drug companies are taking notice.  Pfizer has begun labeling Zoloft with warnings about suicide and other companies are following suit. In the United Kingdom, anti-depressants are outlawed for teens and adolescents because of the suicide risk.

As for Amy Philo, she weaned herself off the drug she was taking against doctor’s orders and her hallucinations stopped almost immediately.

She’s expecting another baby in September, and feels better prepared this time.

Philo is happy her baby  C.H.A.A.D.A. is growing, too, so that other women can be helped.

Posted by toshko under Zoloft News | Comments (0)

 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Monopoly medicine squashes the alternatives

August 2, 2006

After 12 years of conducting research in and around the pharmaceutical industry, I have developed a single, compelling hypothesis. Orthodox medicine, which is supported by, partnered with and sometimes dependent upon the pharmaceutical industry, has worked to squash the competition and effectively deprive us of alternatives to prescription drugs – primarily vitamins and herbal treatments – and other potentially useful treatments.
There, I’ve said it. The problem is I am not sure I believe it.
I mean, can Big Pharma really wield that much power over the medical orthodoxy and push complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to the margins, where it may be ignored or otherwise not taken seriously?
If this is true, where’s the evidence? Show me the smoking gun, I say.
Thus begins my journey to see if there is enough evidence to prove or disprove this theory and to determine if modern healthcare – the monolithic and largely pharma-centric enterprise that it has become – has been able to so thoroughly dominate the field of medical practice that safe and effective alternatives go unused.
Essentially, I would define “alternative� treatments as those that are not produced by corporations, which are granted monopoly licences (patents). In other words, today’s medical orthodoxy largely, but not completely, involves patentable products that are controlled by federal regulation, prescribed by doctors and dispensed by pharmacists. Western industrial medicine has marginalized anything that isn’t… well, industrial.
Regardless of whether a treatment is patented or not, there are commercial vendors deceptively hawking and hyping medicine of all sorts, both inside and outside the sacred paradigm of modern drugs’n’surgery medicine.
If you think that orthodox medicine has cornered the market on virtue, however, you only need remember the Vioxx debacle, a fiasco of truly gargantuan proportions, where armies of rheumatologists-for-hire, celebrity salespeople, arthritis “expert’s� and Astroturf patient groups all toiled together under accepted practices of modern pharmaceutical care. Yet even with all the well-meaning physicians, in the US, Vioxx morphed into a 50,000+ body count catastrophe, eclipsing anything that any unscrupulous vitamin or herb hawker has been able to perpetrate before or since.
To help me on my quest to find the smoking gun, I consulted an expert in our own neighbourhood, Dr. Warren Bell, a family physician in Salmon Arm and the president of the Association of Complementary and Integrative Physicians of British Columbia. For more than 20 years, Dr. Bell has been involved in issues of social development, the environment and global health. He speaks thoughtfully, pausing carefully to pluck le mot juste from the air, as he outlines the main reasons that alternative medicines continue to be kept out of many patients’ hands.
Bell believes that any discussion about modern healthcare, if it does not include the growth of corporations, is incomplete, and he cites the increasingly large and ominous role that corporations play in defining, shaping and profiting from treating healthcare as an industry, and patients as commodities in this industry.
He also sees that the pharmaceutical industry, which is at the centre of modern medicine, employs a number of methods to deal with the “competition,� including reducing the influence of a range of effective biological remedies, or CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) that may threaten corporate profits. He breaks down the methods into three broad categories: “controlling them, buying them, or discrediting them.�
In terms of control, Bell refers to the modern push to use regulations to limit access to alternative remedies, the most striking example being the UN body called Codex Alimentarius, which has “… taken on the task [egged on by industry] of regulating biological remedies.� The other way to deal with the competition is to buy it.
Since as much as 60 percent of the retail market for non-patentable biological remedies is owned by the drug industry, it is merely doing what many companies do: setting itself up to more readily capitalize on the markets’ shifting winds. The companies can either profit from selling the alternative products or otherwise prevent those products from competing with the industry’s most profitable (patented) products.
The last method, which constitutes denying or discrediting the alternatives, is where I see my search getting warmer. One of the undeniable ways that alternatives are discredited is by defeating them with science. On the surface, most of us would agree that if the alternatives can’t compete with pharmaceuticals on the basis of good science, then they don’t really belong in a physician’s armamentarium. As a society, we decided long ago that prescription drugs should not be marketed on the basis of untested claims. Therefore, should the alternatives not also be required to similarly prove their worth?
There are a 101 ways to answer this, but suffice to say that the bar for getting a product tested in a randomized, controlled trial is high. And it is largely within the realm of the lucrative patent drug producers to fund such studies. Since the bar is money, there is an automatic financial bias; call it the bias of tons ’o’ money that, from the start, molds the shape of the evidence base, which underlies modern medical practice. Basically, if you can’t patent it, why would you study it?
What this means is that perhaps much of the basic research behind the alternatives doesn’t actually happen because there is no commercial incentive for that type of research. That, plus the fact that the amount of investment of public money is a pittance.
Bias also creeps in through the industry facilitating studies that make the alternatives seem useless. Those negative studies are then published, stating that vitamin E, oat bran or vitamin C do a lot less than you think they do. (Big Pharma more craftily tends to just bury its negative studies.) According to Bell, all of this helps “… facilitate the professional scepticism, which allows criticism [of the alternatives] to happen with ease.�
While Andrew Saul, assistant editor of the online Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (JOM) http://www.orthomed.org/jom/jom.html would agree with Bell, Saul would go much further. In an interview from his office in upstate New York, he tells me that “replication� studies to prove or disprove previous research are often set up to fail. Orthomolecular medicine uses high doses of vitamins to help treat and cure a variety of diseases from psychiatric illness to cancer. Despite very good evidence underlying orthomolecular medicine, there has been some activity to keep it at the margins. He tells me about a study that came out of the Mayo clinic a few years ago slamming vitamin C in cancer treatments.
It appears the Mayo clinic was trying to replicate some of the early work done by vitamin pioneer Linus Pauling, who believed that high doses of vitamin C would strengthen the immune system. Pauling tested intravenous vitamin C (about 10 grams per day) and found that it extended the lives of cancer patients. After the Mayo clinic published its replication study (showing it didn’t work), Pauling critiqued that study in detail and pointed out that where his research tested mega doses of intravenous vitamin C in cancer patients, the Mayo clinic study used oral doses. Curiously, those important critiques of these alleged replication studies, which show the alternative to be not so terrific, gain wide currency and become well known in medical circles.
So who would push the uptake and widespread attention to vitamins-don’t-work� studies? Is this the smoking gun?
If you followed the money, you might find a guiding hand, but not necessarily the smoking gun in the industry’s efforts to discredit the alternatives. We know there are more than 100,000 drug detailers (drug salespeople) on the streets in the US and about 5,000 in Canada, who, in their daily visits to your and my doctor could very easily facilitate the delivery of the latest study showing that vitamin D didn’t fare so well in osteoporosis-prevention, (delivered by a rep promoting the company’s osteoporosis drug) or that vitamin E was less than stellar in treating heart disease, (dropped off by a helpful cholesterol drug saleslady).
Are there any examples where the drug industry has actually funded a study to show that the alternative competition (herbal treatments or vitamin therapy) has been proven in a clinical trial to be just plain lousy? Typically, the drug manufacturers wouldn’t want their fingerprints on such studies, but one recent example that comes to mind, and there are many more, involves a study of St. John’s Wort (a flowering herb) for treating mild to moderate depression.
Other cultures have embraced herbal treatments more fully than we have in Canada and I bet Canadian doctors would be surprised if they knew that St. John’s Wort is the number one selling antidepressant therapy in Germany. There are more than two dozen published studies that show St. John’s Wort improves depression in patients, compared to placebo. Yet some say the studies are not without their weaknesses, citing short trials and small samples of patients, a criticism you could level equally at most tests of patented antidepressant therapies in use today.
In April 2001, drug giant Pfizer, which sells sertraline (Zoloft), funded a study that compared its drug to St John’s Wort extract and placebo in 200 patients over eight weeks. It found, surprise, surprise, that St John’s Wort “failed to produce significant differences vs. placebo.� Time to jettison St. John’s Wort? Not yet.
A year later, a study which tested remission for severe depression found the placebo beat both St John’s Wort and Zoloft, and another study with 375 patients showed that St John’s Wort “produced significantly greater reduction� in depression scores over the comparators. You can imagine which study would more likely be presented to our doctors during after dinner talks or dropped off at physicians’ offices by those thousands of drug reps. The message is out and driven home by repetition: St. John’s Wort bad; Zoloft good.
Another way to make the alternatives look bad is through skewing the research of those alternatives. In the words of Dr. Bell, who sums up the state of research in vitamin therapies, “If you want to show something doesn’t work, then use too small a dose, for too short a period, on a condition where any effect would be modest at best, slow to be achieved, and require largish amounts of the substance in question. The results, often, are a foregone conclusion.�

Discount Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at discount prices including free shipping.Discount Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order discount pharmacy online.
Recently, there has been a spate of meta-analysis studies (studies that look at an overview of a body of studies), which has shown vitamin therapies to be losers. One recent meta-analysis of vitamin E included nearly 20 studies, all of which were positive for the vitamin’s benefits for cardiovascular disease. However, two of the studies included were negative, and in the magic of statistical re-analysis, the weight of those two negative studies tipped the balance in favour of an overall negative result. Message to doctors? Forget vitamin therapies.
I felt I was getting warmer and wanted to see what has been done in terms of basic research on alternative therapies. I only had to travel a few kilometres to visit Dr. Abram Hoffer, who runs the Orthomolecular Vitamin Information Centre down on Quadra Street in Victoria. (www.orthomolecularvitamincentre.com/)
Now in his late eighties, Hoffer is one of the true granddaddies of orthomolecular medicine. One of his key contributions to medical knowledge is his research in using large doses of vitamins to treat people with mental illness. He tells me he’s successfully treated thousands of schizophrenic patients, of whom 85 percent are “normal� after two years of treatment. By “normal� he means that his patients are returning to productive lives within society, able to do productive work, have relationships and so on.
As well as vitamin therapies (as opposed to toxic drugs), Hoffer saw better housing and decent nutrition as important in treating schizophrenia. How Dr. Hoffer’s treatments would fare against what is now standard schizophrenia therapy – widely-prescribed, very powerful and somewhat toxic anti-psychotic drugs, which patients sometimes stay on for life – is hard to say given that those comparative studies have not been done.
As someone who has worked from the margins of medicine for nearly five decades, Hoffer stands as an important researcher in a field that has essentially been sidelined and marginalized by orthodox medicine. Even with Pauling’s high profile (he is the winner of two Nobel Prizes) as a drawing card, orthomolecular medicine has never seen the light of day in orthodox circles. Just ask anyone who treats cancer patients or schizophrenics whether they would consider using high-dose vitamin therapy and they will likely look at you as if you’re some kind of quack. And they will then say that there’s no evidence for those therapies. End of story.
Hoffer admits that most physicians believe nutrition plays a large part in the healing arts, but he knows that the average medical school curriculum is almost entirely deficient in any education on nutrition, other than perhaps a few hours over four years of medical training. By contrast, he notes that naturopathic doctors spend about 30 percent of their education studying nutrition. Dr. Bell also echoes the deficiencies in current medical training, noting that other potentially important aspects of health, such as exercise and environmental influences, are simply not taught at all.
While most physicians might dismiss alternative medicine as something that lacks a solid base of research, there is, in fact, decades of research out there, much of which doesn’t see the light of day in today’s medical schools. Hoffer, for example, started doing the first double-blind placebo studies using vitamin B, also known as niacin (three grams per day), to treat schizophrenia in 1952. Unfortunately, he began this research at a time when the new forms of powerful psychiatric drugs were just being developed by pharmaceutical firms and enthusiastically embraced by psychiatrists as the “modern� way to treat severe mental disturbances.
But surely alternative medicine gets published and exposed to the anvil of peer review, or criticism from peers, to separate the base metals from scientific gold. For some commentary on the published science around orthomolecular medicine, I go back to Andrew Saul.
Saul confirms that Hoffer was considered an early threat by the pharmaceutical establishment and that as he started to publish his research, the psychiatric profession basically closed ranks behind him.
“They wanted to make sure that this upstart wouldn’t produce any conflicting treatments,� Saul tells me, adding that although Hoffer’s early research was published, “he was warned from psychiatry that he would never publish again.� Hoffer then started his own journal.
Similarly, there may be other methods that continue to sideline alternatives, such as orthomolecular practitioners. Hoffer’s Journal has been published for 39 years, but it has never been indexed on Medline, the world’s premier medical journal index.
If one wants their research exposed to the big leagues, getting their journal indexed on Medline is vitally important, as that’s where all the serious medical literature is indexed and stored. Medline is considered the world’s medical “Library of Record,� where medical researchers can conduct quick and precise searches through an exhaustive repository of millions of journal articles.
Yet it appears that after five attempts, the National Library of Medicine in the US, the body that runs Medline, continues to refuse to index Hoffer’s Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. Why?
Andrew Saul would say this is the smoking gun I am looking for: clear evidence of an organized effort on behalf of the drug industry to dismiss and disallow alternative medicine by not allowing the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (JOM), which contains nearly four decades of peer-reviewed science, into its club.
Saul says point-blank that the “National Institutes of Health are in bed with Big Pharma� and that “there is so much health research money from Pharma, that they pretty well have a lock-step on what is considered good research and what is considered bad. He maintains that institutionalized medicine is actively biased against vitamins and points to JOM being continually rebuffed by Medline as clear evidence of bias.
Another researcher, Dr. Steven Hickey from Manchester in the UK, has dug into the Medline conundrum, trying to verify Saul’s claims.
Hickey tried to submit an application to index JOM, stating that his application was “aimed at testing your [Medline’s] responses and, in that, Medline has failed rather miserably. Medline is filtering out important information concerning people’s health on the basis of prejudice and profit for the pharmaceutical companies. The result is that people will be unnecessarily sick and will die.�
In the course of his application, Hickey wrote to Sheldon Kotzin, the administrator who oversees the committee that indexes journals for Medline, complaining that the committee is biased by its very nature. He noted: “The appropriate metaphor is this: if the prosecutor chooses the jury, the result can be a foregone conclusion.� Despite being given ample opportunity, Kotzin didn’t reply to these accusations.
Some might say that the tug-of-war is between a journal that believes it deserves recognition from the medical community and the gatekeepers of that community, who decide that membership is a private matter. Is this the smoking gun that delivers the clearest evidence yet of systematic bias?
There is no doubt that bias is at work everywhere, especially from within the conventional medical community, which sees itself as waging perpetual war against quackery. But what is maintaining that status quo? Bell maintains that there is an inherent bias in conventional medicine against “unproven� complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches. He points to a most interesting study in Germany that may provide some of the strongest evidence of bias yet.
A randomized, controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy carried out in Bad Elster, Germany, was designed to test the hypothesis that experts, who review papers for publication, are prejudiced against an unconventional form of therapy.
The investigators produced version A and B of a short report relating to treatments of obesity, which were identical except for the nature of the intervention. Version A related to an orthodox treatment, version B to an unconventional treatment.
The investigators found that the reviewers, unaware that they were taking part in a study, were three times more likely to favour the orthodox version of the paper and rate it as acceptable. The researchers conclude: “Authors of technically good unconventional papers may therefore be at a disadvantage in the peer review process.� The researchers maintained that this obvious bias in the minds of reviewers shouldn’t preclude publication of their work in peer-reviewed orthodox journals, a somewhat laughable assertion given the nature of the evidence they just discovered.
A final point needs to be made about how the promoters of alternative medicine tend to get lambasted by the medical orthodoxy. Just last May at a meeting of the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Prince Charles gave a speech promoting complementary medicine, saying that Britain’s National Health Service needs to pay for some proven alternative treatments.
This prompted a stinging rebuke from the dyed-in-the-wool medical orthodoxy. A group of 13 scientists, which included some of the most eminent names in British medicine, stated in a letter that they objected to the National Health Service paying for these CAM remedies.
The scientists wrote: “Public funding of unproven or disproved treatments, such as homoeopathy and reflexology, which are promoted by the Prince, are unacceptable while huge NHS deficits are forcing trusts to sack nurses and limit access to life-saving drugs.�
It’s pretty clear that this is not about what works, but rather what will be paid for. In order for orthodox medicine to survive, it must essentially ensure the competition doesn’t receive funding. And at least in BC, which in recent years has been reining in the funding for alternatives, this is essentially what is happening.
Back to my original hypothesis: orthodox medicine is shunting aside alternative medicine. But where’s the smoking gun?
I don’t think there is one. This is a situation where “death through a thousand cuts� means that alternative medicine will continue to be marginalized. There is much prejudice, bias and outright ignorance on behalf of the medical community against those treatments that don’t fit the pharma-patent mold. And it is increasingly clear that overlooked medicines are largely being kept out of our reach.

Alan Cassels is co-author of Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients, and a drug policy researcher at the University of Victoria. He is also the founder of Media Doctor Canada (www.mediadoctor.ca), which evaluates reporting of medical treatments in Canada’s media.

Posted by toshko under Zoloft News | Comments (0)

 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...