When the cure is worse than the disease
It's always with a sinking feeling that I tell you about the less-than-stellar results of drugs that have been out on the market for a while, because I realize those negative findings represent real folks who took those drugs in good faith. They followed doctor's orders to manage their diseases—and didn't understand that they were being used as guinea pigs.
A case in point involves the two popular drugs prescribed for type 2 diabetes. You've probably seen the headlines proclaiming that patients who are on either of these drugs are twice as likely to develop heart failure. Out of every 50 patients on either of these drugs, one will develop heart failure within 26 months.
There are more than 3 million diabetic patients in this country who are taking one of these prescriptions. Do the math. That's an unacceptable number of people being put at risk for heart failure.
Worse is the recent review that discovered Avandia's risks were higher than that of Actos—which I'll talk about in a minute.
While researchers knew there was a risk of heart failure associated with these drugs, they report that they didn't realize the extent of that risk. Nor, they say, did they know that the risk could occur even in the lowest dose given and among younger patients.
The risk also extends beyond patients on insulin and includes folks who were not flagged for any other heart-failure-risk factors. And even though Actos was not off the hook for higher risks, it was considered safer for insulin users compared to Avandia.
Researchers attribute the increased risk to the probability that the drugs cause fluid retention.
Unbelievably, the FDA's initial response was to dicker around, kick the dirt, and wonder if the "benefits outweigh the risks."
Apparently in its eyes, they do. But you have to read "benefits" as "profits" and "risks" as "lives."
