Posts Tagged ‘heart’

Heart Warning Added to Label on Popular Antipsychotic Drug Seroquel

Tuesday, July 19th, 2011

Today the New York Times has reported, “AstraZeneca is adding a new heart warning to the labels of Seroquel, its blockbuster antipsychotic drug, at the request of the Food and Drug Administration, company and agency officials said on Monday.”   And that  “Seroquel is one of the top-selling drugs in the world, at $5.3 billion last year, including $3.7 billion in the United States. Introduced in 1997, it has been approved for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and severe depression. Seroquel has caused legal problems for AstraZeneca, including a $520 million payment in 2009 to settle government charges of illegal marketing. Thousands of lawsuits are pending over side effects like diabetes.” (read the full article here http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19drug.html )

While this is seemingly good news, look a little deeper—today’s article from Paul Thacker, an investigator for Project on Government Oversight:

Paging Dr. Woodcock…Dr. Janet Woodcock….Do You Have Any Clue What’s Happening Inside the FDA?

There is confusion and then there is confused confusion–a level of incomprehensibility that defies sound, sober attempt at explanation. After confused confusion comes…the FDA.

Case in point: the FDA’s dithering over changes to the label of an antipsychotic drug now widely prescribed to veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. Last October, POGO sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg asking her to look into a potentially dangerous interaction of the drugs Seroquel (quetiapine) and methadone that may be putting veterans at risk.

Prescriptions of Seroquel and methadone are at an all-time high for veterans who are suffering extremely high rates of PTSD after combat. An investigation by the Military Times found that military spending on Seroquel almost quadrupled between 2001 and 2009. Many of these veterans are also taking methadone for pain relief and to control anxiety caused by PTSD. The Military Times found that methadone overdose has caused at least 60 deaths in the military—more than any other drug, legal or illegal.

A separate investigation by the Associated Press noted that military expenditures on Seroquel have jumped sevenfold since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. The military spent $8.6 million on Seroquel in 2009. Physicians said that they are prescribing it to provide relief from nightmares and anxiety caused by PTSD.

The Associated Press also discovered that Seroquel has become the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) second biggest drug expenditure since 2007. In 2009, the VA spent $125 million on Seroquel compared to $14.4 million in 2001.

Alerting the FDA to this problem, we also sent a study published in 2007 in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. This study found that Seroquel significantly increases blood plasma levels of methadone.

How did FDA respond? In April, we received a letter signed by Dr. Janet Woodcock, Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the FDA. According to Dr. Woodcock, there was nothing to worry about:

After assessment of our evaluations, we believe that a potentially dangerous interaction involving quetiapine and methadone is unlikely, and, therefore, no further Agency action is indicated regarding either a revision in labeling that would include new warnings or cautions, or targeted public and professional communications efforts.

To make sure we got the point, she added:

At this point, there is agreement within CDER that an interaction between quetiapine and methadone that confers unreasonable risks to patients is exceedingly unlikely and, therefore, no further action is indicated regarding the labeling for these products or for related communication initiatives.

Less than two months later, in June, the FDA approved changes to the label for Seroquel to note that the drug “should be avoided in combination with other drugs” such as methadone.

What the hell? This is exactly what we asked them to do. Exactly what Dr. Woodcock said didn’t need to be done.

Can somebody please explain this to me? Please!

Anyways, we are now sending a second letter to the FDA asking them, as we did in October, to please issue an action alert to inform patients and prescribers. There is a potential for people to die if they are on Seroquel and methadone, and it seems highly improbable that a military doctor treating veterans with PTSD has the time to read the entire 73 pages of the Seroquel label.

That’s right. It’s 73 fricking pages!!!

That’s not a label, that’s a novella.

We hope the FDA agrees to send out an action alert. But maybe we’ll get a letter from Dr. Woodcock saying that everything is okay, and no further action is indicated…and there’s no need to alarm people by sending out an action alert….

And then they’ll send it anyways.

Paul Thacker is a POGO Investigator.

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/07/paging-dr-woodcockdr-janet-woodcockdo-you-have-any-clue-whats-happening-inside-the-fda.html

« Return to news items


Share

Paxil Birth Defects Lawyers Site Offers News And Information About Antidepressant Heart Defects

Monday, September 27th, 2010
Quote startDespite evidence suggesting that Paxil could cause birth defects, Glaxo deliberately chose not to conduct studies that would have uncovered the true dangers of the drug.Quote end

The law firm of Hissey Kientz, LLP is pleased to announce the launch of its new website, Paxil Birth Defects Lawyers (http://www.paxilbirthdefectslawyers.com/). The site will serve as an information resource for the parents and families of children born with birth defects linked to their mothers’ use of Paxil during pregnancy. Multiple studies have found that the children of mothers who take Paxil while pregnant are at an increased risk of severe birth defects.

PR WEB

September 27, 2010

The law firm of Hissey Kientz, LLP is pleased to announce the launch of its new website, Paxil Birth Defects Lawyers (http://www.paxilbirthdefectslawyers.com/). The site will serve as an information resource for the parents and families of children born with birth defects linked to their mothers’ use of Paxil during pregnancy.

Paxil is part of a class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). After it first went on the market in December 1992, Paxil has gone on to become one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States, with annual sales of $3.2 billion by 2002.

Multiple studies have found that the children of mothers who take Paxil while pregnant are at an increased risk of severe birth defects. In December 2005, the Food and Drug Administration called for stronger birth defects warnings on the drug’s labeling after two studies found that Paxil doubles the risk of birth defects when taken by women during the first trimester of pregnancy. Most of these birth defects involved cases of atrial and ventricular septal defects (holes in the walls of the chambers of the heart).

Paxil has also been linked to an increased risk of birth defects when taken later in pregnancy. A 2006 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that women who take Paxil or similar antidepressants after the 20th week of pregnancy are six times more likely to give birth to a child with persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), a condition which causes breathing and circulation problems that may lead to hospitalization or death.

Taking Paxil during pregnancy may also be linked to a number of other serious heart defects in newborns, including cardiomyopathy, tricuspid stenosis, cleft mitral valves, hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), hypoplastic right heart syndrome (HRHS), bicuspid aortic valves or patent ductus arteriosus (PDA).

Documents uncovered in the ongoing litigation against GSK [Paxil] products liability litigation (MDL-1574)] have revealed that GlaxoSmithKline, the drug’s manufacturer, was aware of the potential link between the antidepressant and birth defects as early as 1980, but failed to recall the drug or properly warn about its dangers until these risks were made public by researchers.

“Despite evidence suggesting that Paxil could cause birth defects, GlaxoSmithKline deliberately chose not to conduct studies that would have uncovered the true dangers of the drug,” says David Friend of Hissey Kientz, LLP. “It is impossible to say how many lives were drastically altered because of the company’s failure to heed the advice of experts and investigate the link between Paxil and birth defects.”

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/09/prweb4565144.htm

« Return to news items


Share

Pharmaceutical companies deceive public—case in point; Antidepressants

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

The Star Phoenix
By Mark Lemstra
July 29, 2010

We could save $2 billion a year on health-care costs in Saskatchewan while improving health outcomes if we adopt evidence-based protocols.

To do so, we need to find about $40 million of efficiency in each of about 50 areas.

This is the third article in a five-part series on depression. My first column discussed the limitations in diagnosing depression. The second presented literature reviews that concluded antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression.

This column explains how the drug companies deceive us. Let’s start with some general information and proceed to specific examples for antidepressants.

In 2008, the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote an editorial for the Journal of the American Medical Association, titled: Industry sponsored research: A broken system?

Based on her tenure as the editor of the world’s most prestigious medical journal, Dr. Marcia Angell made some accusations. She wrote that drug companies often design studies, conduct the data analysis, decide which data will be included or suppressed, write the papers, pay for prestigious clinicians to put their name on papers already written by the drug company, and then decide how and when the paper will be published.

Dr. Angell concluded: “Drug companies now finance most clinical research on prescription drugs, and there is mounting evidence that they often skew the research they sponsor to make their drugs look better and safer. Physicians can no longer rely on the medical literature for valid and reliable information.”

She also published a best selling and award-winning novel, The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.

Let’s look at some examples from anti-depressants.

A research team from the United States, which was skeptical about the benefits of antidepressants, used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain results from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for all placebo-controlled trials. The team was startled to learn that 40 per cent of the studies had been suppressed because of negative results.

When all the studies were included, incorporating the negative studies, the authors concluded that “antidepressants are little more than active placebos, drugs with very little specific benefit, but with serious side-effects.”

The resulting publication in Prevention and Treatment made headlines around the world. And although regulatory agencies in Europe have begun to respond, there has been no response in North America.

At this point, let’s discuss the potential side-effects of antidepressants in a review from Harvard Medical School, titled: What are the real risks of antidepressants?

The most serious of these includes the increased risk of attempted suicide, especially among children. Other side-effects include insomnia, skin rashes, headaches, joint and muscle pain, stomach upset, nausea, diarrhea, reduced blood clotting capacity, stomach bleeding, uterine bleeding, tics, muscle spasms, trembling limbs, restlessness, severe anxiety, reduced sexual interest, reduced sexual performance, reduced sexual satisfaction, disturbed heart rhythms and reduced liver function.

There are also complications when antidepressants are taken with other drugs, and there is a long list of side-effects when antidepressant use is discontinued, including dizziness, loss of co-ordination, fatigue, burning sensations, blurred vision, insomnia, vivid dreams, nausea, diarrhea, flu-like symptoms, irritability, anxiety and crying spells.

Recently, the antidepressant Serzone was removed from the market after it was associated with hepatitis and liver failure.

The most worrisome side-effect is the increased risk of suicide attempt so let’s take a closer look.

Another review from the Food and Drug Administration found that not only do antidepressants provide no benefit to children, but the drugs are associated with a 50 per cent increase in suicidal behaviour.

Regrettably, these negative results, too, were buried by the drug companies.

Read the rest of this article here:  http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Pharmaceutical+companies+deceive+public/3336124/story.html

Previous articles in this series: Effect of antidepressants, placebos similar by Mark Lemstra
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/health/Effect+antidepressants+placebos+similar/3307896/story.html

Expanding mental disorders list adds to cost by Mark Lemstra
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/health/Expanding+mental+disorders+list+adds+cost/3280676/story.html

« Return to news items


Share