Comments on: Glaxo Downplayed Early Warning About AIDS Drug

By: HorusCat

HorusCat — Sat, 17 May 2008 02:53:02 +0000

Bob Freeman,
Not surprising. So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised when the American public is even more ignorant and reacts in hysterics to claims of this or that med “doubling” the risk of suicide, MI, toe fungus or whatever.

If people really understood risk, they wouldn’t drive anywhere, but they’d take their Celebrex to help them walk to the local store.

By: Bob Freeman

Bob Freeman — Sat, 17 May 2008 02:49:32 +0000

HorusCat, I think you’re right about relative and absolute risk. I teach pharmacoepidemiology (to pharmacy students and public health grad students) and have been surprised at the amound of remedial work I have to do for the entire class and for individuals. I’ve looked at the epi curriculum that med students get and it’s not emphasized to the extent one would think. Getting students to put in plain English what an odds ratio means is an “interesting” exercise.

By: HorusCat

HorusCat — Sat, 17 May 2008 01:58:29 +0000

Bobby C wrote:

“When did we casually accept the notion to fight fire with fire?”

Usually, one accepts that notion when one’s own ass is burning. Do you have AIDS? Those facing their imminent demise often are willing to take extreme measures to put that event off for a little while. Give the patients the facts and let them decide. I expect it will be like oncology and chemo–some go for it, some take a pass.

By: HorusCat

HorusCat — Sat, 17 May 2008 01:56:26 +0000

Doc,
I talk about relative and absolute risk with my docs all the time, so I don’t have any idea what you are talking about. Many physicians don’t understand the difference–and especially as it applies to different disease states.

What is the baseline rate of MI in AIDS patients? How far along are they when the MI happens? What is their prognosis with and without the drug? What other outcome data does this drug have? Seems to me that these are far more important questions, and questions that I would ask were I to have AIDS.

By: Bobby C

Bobby C — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:31:40 +0000

Does this really surprise anyone? To make money, pharmaceutical companies need to sell drugs.

To sell drugs, you have to downplay the side-effects.

This is a systemic problem, not unlike the steroid baseball scandal during the past decade.

It is corrupting medicine, it is corrupting science.

They have scared so many people into taking drugs — it’s placebo effect run amok. But, now the side-effects are so deadly and potent, it ain’t funny anymore.

When did medicine start causing heart attacks?

When did we casually accept the notion to fight fire with fire?

Just remember, it ain’t about your health. It’s about selling drugs.

By: truthma30

truthma30 — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:18:11 +0000

GSK is a market leader..
in downplaying dangerous side effects..
Paxil, Avandia and now Abacavir…
Well done GSK..

By: Doc

Doc — Mon, 12 May 2008 11:52:49 +0000

“spurious observations” - here is one of my own.

“Didier Lapierre, Glaxo’s vp of clinical development, told investors last month that the increased relative risk of heart attacks remained low in absolute terms and that patients should not discontinue treatment without medical advice.”

- What a farce! Every pharma company I know of pushes their meds primarily based on Kaplan Mier Realtive Risk Reduction (RRR) curves. When challenged in the field by providers about low ‘absolute risk reduction’ (which is frequently less than overwhelming), the field sales forces are trained to discount the absolute risk reduction and emphasize the RRR of their product. Now when we see a pharma company on the hot seat for a distrubing trend in RRR, they discount that to focus on a low absolute risk reduction. If the general public could grasp what is being done in the name of ‘promotion’ and what ethical standard is selectively applied to rx drugs, what would they think?