anti-inflamatories now linked to heart attack

[haikuhamu]

I am very disappointed in our drug companies. They have suppressed results from medical trials that showed a link between these meds and heart attacks. This is not proper scientific method. One does not discard results simply on the basis that they will hurt the bottom line. But I suppose that is to be expected when companies are subject to the Almighty Dollar.

Find out more from this brief article (and related links) from the CBC on-line.

Then again, perhaps those results were discarded for other reasons, for valid reasons, that the media is not revealing because that would reduce the emotional punch to the story, damaging THEIR bottom line.

Where is TRUTH these days???

It is so difficult to ride that fine line between skeptic and cynic!

 

[Diamond]

Can I ask: what was the Relaltive Risk of stroke from taking these drugs?

 

[The Don]

It may relate to the way in which clinical trials are carried out. The new treatment is administered to a group of people and the effects, both positive and negative, are assessed against a control group and against existing treatments.

In terms of the advisory,

All three drugs "may be associated with an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events [heart attack and stroke] especially when they are used for long periods of time or in very high risk settings [immediately after heart surgery]," the FDA said in a public health advisory.

Which may indicate that the group selected for the trial included too few people in the high risk category. If there was no reason at the time of the trial to suspect that this group were higher risk then there would have been no need to consider this group separately. It may also mean that the trials weren't long enough. If side effects were only noted after, say, 25 years of continual use then it would be unreasonable to expect these to be discovered during the trial phase.

One of the reasons why drugs are continually assessed during their lifetimes is that actual usage can identify risks and issues that any trial could not reasonably find.

Also as Diamond mentioned, the risks of taking the drugs may still be much less than the risks of taking them.

So long as the media do not overhype the problem, they are performing a useful service. Of course the public these days are so distrusting of scientists that there's a risk that the problems may be overplayed

 

[Bikewer]

Naturally, this is of great interest to me, being increasingly old and creaky. (the human knee refutes any notion of "intelligent" design)
Various medical commentators that have appeared on NPR refer to the studies involving people who were:
Elderly,
Had arthritis,
and heart disease.

Not exactly an "average" group of people. I take Naproxen fairly frequently for my various aches and pains. Seems to work well, and I have no noticeable side effects.
I'm 58, have no heart disease (yet!), and am otherwise healthy.

So what's my risk? So far, no one has said much of anything other than patients must "weigh the risk/benifit factor.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Actually, the naproxen (Aleve) bit is an issue in our house. Our family doc told us that Aleve would be more effective for our 16 year old son's migraines than ibuprofen. This same child also has a genetic heart condition (hypertrophic cardiomyopathy) that complicates matters.

Fortunately the beta blocker he takes for the heart condition (reduces the blood pressure across the mitral valve so that it will not be damaged any further) has pretty much prevented further migraines.