People are now looking to target older studies for possible drug risks. The problem is that these analyses are retrospective, and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. Since when did the double-blind, randomized-controlled prospective study stop being the gold standard?
As he examined data on a computer one day last fall, drug-safety reviewer Ralph Edwards saw something that concerned him: Of 172 people in his database who developed Lou Gehrig’s disease or something similar while taking prescription medicines, 40 had been on statins, the huge-selling cholesterol drugs.Dr. Edwards, director of the World Health Organization’s drug-monitoring center, has amassed about four million reports of medical problems experienced by people taking prescription drugs. His job is to sift through these so-called adverse events, looking for “signals” of potential side effects.
Related posts:
- Prescription drug abuse
- Zero tolerance for adverse drug events
- Should consumer prescription drug ads be reined in?
- When drug side effects scare patients away from treatment
- Has drug seeking behavior reached the tipping point?
- Big Pharma, data-mining, and the AMA
- Are patients the real "drug pushers?"
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
OK- I didn’t read the whole article because it requires a subscription, but from what we can see, it looks like less than 25% of the people with ALS were on statins. Given that ALS typically occurs in the over-60 demographic, wouldn’t it be expected that about 25% (or more!) of those patients would be on statins? It’s the old correlation/causation trouble.
Comments on this entry are closed.