What's new
By:
Filters
Cystic Fibrosis Forum (EXP)

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

New Drug Safety Warnings

M

mom2lillian

New member
As part of my job I get updates on all sorts FDA stuff so I figured I would start fishing through some of the stuff that is normally in my 'dont care' about pile to see if it relates to CF and post it. Hopefully some find it helpful.

Today 33 drugs had updates to their safety profiles. This often comes after additional adverse reactions were reproted and confirmed or after longer safety studies were completed or larger populations have been on teh drug for a while and reports were generated.

These come in table format and so are hard to read here, please visit <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.fda.gov/default.htm">http://www.fda.gov/default.htm</a> for full details.



Advair Diskus
(fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate inhalation powder)

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
. Reduction in Bone Mineral Density

WARNINGS and PRECAUTIONS
. Reduction in Bone Mineral Density
o 2-Year Fluticasone Propionate Study
o 3-Year Bone Mineral Density Study
o 3-Year Survival Study

Spiriva HandiHaler inhalation powder
Prescribing Information and New Patient Package Insert
WARNINGS
ADVERSE REACTIONS
. added "(new onset or worsening)" to glaucoma
PATIENT PACKAGE INSERT
. New WARNINGS
. section updated symptoms of angioedema: (including swelling of the lips, tongue or throat), itching, and rash

Zithromax (azithromcyin) for Oral Suspension, 200 mg, 500 mg, Single Dose Packet, 600 mg, IV
Prescribing Information
PRECAUTIONS
. General
o Exacerbation of symptoms of myasthenia gravis and new onset of myasthenic syndrome have been reported in patients receiving azithromycin therapy.

. Precautions -Drug Interactions

o Although, in a study of 22 healthy men, a 5-day course of azithromycin did not affect the prothrombin time from a subsequently administered dose of warfarin, spontaneous post-marketing reports suggest that concomitant administration of azithromycin may potentiate the effects of oral anticoagulants. Prothrombin times should be carefully monitored while patients are receiving azithromycin and oral anticoagulants concomitantly.



Sporanox (itraconazole) Capsules, 100 mg

Sections

BOXED WARNING
. Drug Interactions
CONTRAINDICATIONS
. Congestive Heart Failure
. Drug Interactions
WARNINGS
. Cardiac Dysrhythmias
. Cardiac Disease
. Treatment of Severely Neutropenic Patients
PRECAUTIONS
. Hearing Loss
o Transient or permanent hearing loss has been reported .....
. Information for Patients
o Instruct patients that hearing loss can occur...
. Drug Interactions Table additions
o ...disopyramide..(including nisoldipine)..levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl), ergot alkaloids, halofantrine..budesonide,
dexamethasone, fluticasone..warfarin, cilostazol, eletriptan, fentanyl...
. Antiarrhythmics
o The class IA antiarrhythmic disopyramide has the potential to increase the QT interval...
o ...via inhibition of P glycoprotein.
. Calcium Channel Blockers
o ...due to an increased risk of CHF. Concomitant administration of Sporanox and nisoldipine results in...
. Other
o Levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl) is known to prolong the QT...
o Elevated concentrations of ergot alkaloids can cause ergotism...
o Halofantrine has the potential to prolong the QT interval...
o Sporanox may..."glucocorticosteroids such as budesonide, dexamethasone, fluticasone and"...
o Cilostazol and eletriptan are CYP3A4 metabolized...
o Fentanyl plasma concentrations could...
. Pregnancy:Teratogenic Effects, Pregnancy Category C
o During post-marketing experience, cases of congenital abnormalities have been reported.
. Geriatric Use (new section)
. Renal Impairment (new section)
. Hepatic Impairment (new section)
ADVERSE REACTIONS
. Postmarketing Experience
o Revised and table updated
? Transient or permanent hearing loss BOXED WARNING
. Drug Interactions
o Coadministration of "levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)" addition
o ..sudden death have occurred in patients using "levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)"...
CONTRAINDICATIONS
. Congestive Heart Failure (new section)
. Drug Interactions
o nisoldipine
o levacetylmethadol
(levomethadyl)
o Ergot alkaloids metabolized...
WARNINGS
. Cardiac Dysrhythmias
o levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)
. Cardiac Disease
o Itraconazole has been shown to have a negative inotropic effect.
o Sporanox has been associated with reports of congestive heart failure. In post-marketing...
o Calcium channel blockers can have negative inotropic effects
. Treatment of Severely Neutropenic Patients (new section)
 
M

mom2lillian

New member
As part of my job I get updates on all sorts FDA stuff so I figured I would start fishing through some of the stuff that is normally in my 'dont care' about pile to see if it relates to CF and post it. Hopefully some find it helpful.

Today 33 drugs had updates to their safety profiles. This often comes after additional adverse reactions were reproted and confirmed or after longer safety studies were completed or larger populations have been on teh drug for a while and reports were generated.

These come in table format and so are hard to read here, please visit <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.fda.gov/default.htm">http://www.fda.gov/default.htm</a> for full details.



Advair Diskus
(fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate inhalation powder)

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
. Reduction in Bone Mineral Density

WARNINGS and PRECAUTIONS
. Reduction in Bone Mineral Density
o 2-Year Fluticasone Propionate Study
o 3-Year Bone Mineral Density Study
o 3-Year Survival Study

Spiriva HandiHaler inhalation powder
Prescribing Information and New Patient Package Insert
WARNINGS
ADVERSE REACTIONS
. added "(new onset or worsening)" to glaucoma
PATIENT PACKAGE INSERT
. New WARNINGS
. section updated symptoms of angioedema: (including swelling of the lips, tongue or throat), itching, and rash

Zithromax (azithromcyin) for Oral Suspension, 200 mg, 500 mg, Single Dose Packet, 600 mg, IV
Prescribing Information
PRECAUTIONS
. General
o Exacerbation of symptoms of myasthenia gravis and new onset of myasthenic syndrome have been reported in patients receiving azithromycin therapy.

. Precautions -Drug Interactions

o Although, in a study of 22 healthy men, a 5-day course of azithromycin did not affect the prothrombin time from a subsequently administered dose of warfarin, spontaneous post-marketing reports suggest that concomitant administration of azithromycin may potentiate the effects of oral anticoagulants. Prothrombin times should be carefully monitored while patients are receiving azithromycin and oral anticoagulants concomitantly.



Sporanox (itraconazole) Capsules, 100 mg

Sections

BOXED WARNING
. Drug Interactions
CONTRAINDICATIONS
. Congestive Heart Failure
. Drug Interactions
WARNINGS
. Cardiac Dysrhythmias
. Cardiac Disease
. Treatment of Severely Neutropenic Patients
PRECAUTIONS
. Hearing Loss
o Transient or permanent hearing loss has been reported .....
. Information for Patients
o Instruct patients that hearing loss can occur...
. Drug Interactions Table additions
o ...disopyramide..(including nisoldipine)..levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl), ergot alkaloids, halofantrine..budesonide,
dexamethasone, fluticasone..warfarin, cilostazol, eletriptan, fentanyl...
. Antiarrhythmics
o The class IA antiarrhythmic disopyramide has the potential to increase the QT interval...
o ...via inhibition of P glycoprotein.
. Calcium Channel Blockers
o ...due to an increased risk of CHF. Concomitant administration of Sporanox and nisoldipine results in...
. Other
o Levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl) is known to prolong the QT...
o Elevated concentrations of ergot alkaloids can cause ergotism...
o Halofantrine has the potential to prolong the QT interval...
o Sporanox may..."glucocorticosteroids such as budesonide, dexamethasone, fluticasone and"...
o Cilostazol and eletriptan are CYP3A4 metabolized...
o Fentanyl plasma concentrations could...
. Pregnancy:Teratogenic Effects, Pregnancy Category C
o During post-marketing experience, cases of congenital abnormalities have been reported.
. Geriatric Use (new section)
. Renal Impairment (new section)
. Hepatic Impairment (new section)
ADVERSE REACTIONS
. Postmarketing Experience
o Revised and table updated
? Transient or permanent hearing loss BOXED WARNING
. Drug Interactions
o Coadministration of "levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)" addition
o ..sudden death have occurred in patients using "levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)"...
CONTRAINDICATIONS
. Congestive Heart Failure (new section)
. Drug Interactions
o nisoldipine
o levacetylmethadol
(levomethadyl)
o Ergot alkaloids metabolized...
WARNINGS
. Cardiac Dysrhythmias
o levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)
. Cardiac Disease
o Itraconazole has been shown to have a negative inotropic effect.
o Sporanox has been associated with reports of congestive heart failure. In post-marketing...
o Calcium channel blockers can have negative inotropic effects
. Treatment of Severely Neutropenic Patients (new section)
 
M

mom2lillian

New member
As part of my job I get updates on all sorts FDA stuff so I figured I would start fishing through some of the stuff that is normally in my 'dont care' about pile to see if it relates to CF and post it. Hopefully some find it helpful.

Today 33 drugs had updates to their safety profiles. This often comes after additional adverse reactions were reproted and confirmed or after longer safety studies were completed or larger populations have been on teh drug for a while and reports were generated.

These come in table format and so are hard to read here, please visit <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.fda.gov/default.htm">http://www.fda.gov/default.htm</a> for full details.



Advair Diskus
(fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate inhalation powder)

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
. Reduction in Bone Mineral Density

WARNINGS and PRECAUTIONS
. Reduction in Bone Mineral Density
o 2-Year Fluticasone Propionate Study
o 3-Year Bone Mineral Density Study
o 3-Year Survival Study

Spiriva HandiHaler inhalation powder
Prescribing Information and New Patient Package Insert
WARNINGS
ADVERSE REACTIONS
. added "(new onset or worsening)" to glaucoma
PATIENT PACKAGE INSERT
. New WARNINGS
. section updated symptoms of angioedema: (including swelling of the lips, tongue or throat), itching, and rash

Zithromax (azithromcyin) for Oral Suspension, 200 mg, 500 mg, Single Dose Packet, 600 mg, IV
Prescribing Information
PRECAUTIONS
. General
o Exacerbation of symptoms of myasthenia gravis and new onset of myasthenic syndrome have been reported in patients receiving azithromycin therapy.

. Precautions -Drug Interactions

o Although, in a study of 22 healthy men, a 5-day course of azithromycin did not affect the prothrombin time from a subsequently administered dose of warfarin, spontaneous post-marketing reports suggest that concomitant administration of azithromycin may potentiate the effects of oral anticoagulants. Prothrombin times should be carefully monitored while patients are receiving azithromycin and oral anticoagulants concomitantly.



Sporanox (itraconazole) Capsules, 100 mg

Sections

BOXED WARNING
. Drug Interactions
CONTRAINDICATIONS
. Congestive Heart Failure
. Drug Interactions
WARNINGS
. Cardiac Dysrhythmias
. Cardiac Disease
. Treatment of Severely Neutropenic Patients
PRECAUTIONS
. Hearing Loss
o Transient or permanent hearing loss has been reported .....
. Information for Patients
o Instruct patients that hearing loss can occur...
. Drug Interactions Table additions
o ...disopyramide..(including nisoldipine)..levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl), ergot alkaloids, halofantrine..budesonide,
dexamethasone, fluticasone..warfarin, cilostazol, eletriptan, fentanyl...
. Antiarrhythmics
o The class IA antiarrhythmic disopyramide has the potential to increase the QT interval...
o ...via inhibition of P glycoprotein.
. Calcium Channel Blockers
o ...due to an increased risk of CHF. Concomitant administration of Sporanox and nisoldipine results in...
. Other
o Levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl) is known to prolong the QT...
o Elevated concentrations of ergot alkaloids can cause ergotism...
o Halofantrine has the potential to prolong the QT interval...
o Sporanox may..."glucocorticosteroids such as budesonide, dexamethasone, fluticasone and"...
o Cilostazol and eletriptan are CYP3A4 metabolized...
o Fentanyl plasma concentrations could...
. Pregnancy:Teratogenic Effects, Pregnancy Category C
o During post-marketing experience, cases of congenital abnormalities have been reported.
. Geriatric Use (new section)
. Renal Impairment (new section)
. Hepatic Impairment (new section)
ADVERSE REACTIONS
. Postmarketing Experience
o Revised and table updated
? Transient or permanent hearing loss BOXED WARNING
. Drug Interactions
o Coadministration of "levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)" addition
o ..sudden death have occurred in patients using "levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)"...
CONTRAINDICATIONS
. Congestive Heart Failure (new section)
. Drug Interactions
o nisoldipine
o levacetylmethadol
(levomethadyl)
o Ergot alkaloids metabolized...
WARNINGS
. Cardiac Dysrhythmias
o levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)
. Cardiac Disease
o Itraconazole has been shown to have a negative inotropic effect.
o Sporanox has been associated with reports of congestive heart failure. In post-marketing...
o Calcium channel blockers can have negative inotropic effects
. Treatment of Severely Neutropenic Patients (new section)
 
M

mom2lillian

New member
As part of my job I get updates on all sorts FDA stuff so I figured I would start fishing through some of the stuff that is normally in my 'dont care' about pile to see if it relates to CF and post it. Hopefully some find it helpful.

Today 33 drugs had updates to their safety profiles. This often comes after additional adverse reactions were reproted and confirmed or after longer safety studies were completed or larger populations have been on teh drug for a while and reports were generated.

These come in table format and so are hard to read here, please visit <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.fda.gov/default.htm">http://www.fda.gov/default.htm</a> for full details.



Advair Diskus
(fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate inhalation powder)

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
. Reduction in Bone Mineral Density

WARNINGS and PRECAUTIONS
. Reduction in Bone Mineral Density
o 2-Year Fluticasone Propionate Study
o 3-Year Bone Mineral Density Study
o 3-Year Survival Study

Spiriva HandiHaler inhalation powder
Prescribing Information and New Patient Package Insert
WARNINGS
ADVERSE REACTIONS
. added "(new onset or worsening)" to glaucoma
PATIENT PACKAGE INSERT
. New WARNINGS
. section updated symptoms of angioedema: (including swelling of the lips, tongue or throat), itching, and rash

Zithromax (azithromcyin) for Oral Suspension, 200 mg, 500 mg, Single Dose Packet, 600 mg, IV
Prescribing Information
PRECAUTIONS
. General
o Exacerbation of symptoms of myasthenia gravis and new onset of myasthenic syndrome have been reported in patients receiving azithromycin therapy.

. Precautions -Drug Interactions

o Although, in a study of 22 healthy men, a 5-day course of azithromycin did not affect the prothrombin time from a subsequently administered dose of warfarin, spontaneous post-marketing reports suggest that concomitant administration of azithromycin may potentiate the effects of oral anticoagulants. Prothrombin times should be carefully monitored while patients are receiving azithromycin and oral anticoagulants concomitantly.



Sporanox (itraconazole) Capsules, 100 mg

Sections

BOXED WARNING
. Drug Interactions
CONTRAINDICATIONS
. Congestive Heart Failure
. Drug Interactions
WARNINGS
. Cardiac Dysrhythmias
. Cardiac Disease
. Treatment of Severely Neutropenic Patients
PRECAUTIONS
. Hearing Loss
o Transient or permanent hearing loss has been reported .....
. Information for Patients
o Instruct patients that hearing loss can occur...
. Drug Interactions Table additions
o ...disopyramide..(including nisoldipine)..levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl), ergot alkaloids, halofantrine..budesonide,
dexamethasone, fluticasone..warfarin, cilostazol, eletriptan, fentanyl...
. Antiarrhythmics
o The class IA antiarrhythmic disopyramide has the potential to increase the QT interval...
o ...via inhibition of P glycoprotein.
. Calcium Channel Blockers
o ...due to an increased risk of CHF. Concomitant administration of Sporanox and nisoldipine results in...
. Other
o Levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl) is known to prolong the QT...
o Elevated concentrations of ergot alkaloids can cause ergotism...
o Halofantrine has the potential to prolong the QT interval...
o Sporanox may..."glucocorticosteroids such as budesonide, dexamethasone, fluticasone and"...
o Cilostazol and eletriptan are CYP3A4 metabolized...
o Fentanyl plasma concentrations could...
. Pregnancy:Teratogenic Effects, Pregnancy Category C
o During post-marketing experience, cases of congenital abnormalities have been reported.
. Geriatric Use (new section)
. Renal Impairment (new section)
. Hepatic Impairment (new section)
ADVERSE REACTIONS
. Postmarketing Experience
o Revised and table updated
? Transient or permanent hearing loss BOXED WARNING
. Drug Interactions
o Coadministration of "levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)" addition
o ..sudden death have occurred in patients using "levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)"...
CONTRAINDICATIONS
. Congestive Heart Failure (new section)
. Drug Interactions
o nisoldipine
o levacetylmethadol
(levomethadyl)
o Ergot alkaloids metabolized...
WARNINGS
. Cardiac Dysrhythmias
o levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)
. Cardiac Disease
o Itraconazole has been shown to have a negative inotropic effect.
o Sporanox has been associated with reports of congestive heart failure. In post-marketing...
o Calcium channel blockers can have negative inotropic effects
. Treatment of Severely Neutropenic Patients (new section)
 
M

mom2lillian

New member
As part of my job I get updates on all sorts FDA stuff so I figured I would start fishing through some of the stuff that is normally in my 'dont care' about pile to see if it relates to CF and post it. Hopefully some find it helpful.
<br />
<br />Today 33 drugs had updates to their safety profiles. This often comes after additional adverse reactions were reproted and confirmed or after longer safety studies were completed or larger populations have been on teh drug for a while and reports were generated.
<br />
<br />These come in table format and so are hard to read here, please visit <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.fda.gov/default.htm">http://www.fda.gov/default.htm</a> for full details.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Advair Diskus
<br />(fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate inhalation powder)
<br />
<br /> WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
<br />. Reduction in Bone Mineral Density
<br />
<br /> WARNINGS and PRECAUTIONS
<br />. Reduction in Bone Mineral Density
<br />o 2-Year Fluticasone Propionate Study
<br />o 3-Year Bone Mineral Density Study
<br />o 3-Year Survival Study
<br />
<br />Spiriva HandiHaler inhalation powder
<br />Prescribing Information and New Patient Package Insert
<br />WARNINGS
<br />ADVERSE REACTIONS
<br />. added "(new onset or worsening)" to glaucoma
<br />PATIENT PACKAGE INSERT
<br />. New WARNINGS
<br />. section updated symptoms of angioedema: (including swelling of the lips, tongue or throat), itching, and rash
<br />
<br />Zithromax (azithromcyin) for Oral Suspension, 200 mg, 500 mg, Single Dose Packet, 600 mg, IV
<br />Prescribing Information
<br />PRECAUTIONS
<br />. General
<br />o Exacerbation of symptoms of myasthenia gravis and new onset of myasthenic syndrome have been reported in patients receiving azithromycin therapy.
<br />
<br />. Precautions -Drug Interactions
<br />
<br />o Although, in a study of 22 healthy men, a 5-day course of azithromycin did not affect the prothrombin time from a subsequently administered dose of warfarin, spontaneous post-marketing reports suggest that concomitant administration of azithromycin may potentiate the effects of oral anticoagulants. Prothrombin times should be carefully monitored while patients are receiving azithromycin and oral anticoagulants concomitantly.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Sporanox (itraconazole) Capsules, 100 mg
<br />
<br /> Sections
<br />
<br />BOXED WARNING
<br />. Drug Interactions
<br />CONTRAINDICATIONS
<br />. Congestive Heart Failure
<br />. Drug Interactions
<br />WARNINGS
<br />. Cardiac Dysrhythmias
<br />. Cardiac Disease
<br />. Treatment of Severely Neutropenic Patients
<br />PRECAUTIONS
<br />. Hearing Loss
<br />o Transient or permanent hearing loss has been reported .....
<br />. Information for Patients
<br />o Instruct patients that hearing loss can occur...
<br />. Drug Interactions Table additions
<br />o ...disopyramide..(including nisoldipine)..levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl), ergot alkaloids, halofantrine..budesonide,
<br />dexamethasone, fluticasone..warfarin, cilostazol, eletriptan, fentanyl...
<br />. Antiarrhythmics
<br />o The class IA antiarrhythmic disopyramide has the potential to increase the QT interval...
<br />o ...via inhibition of P glycoprotein.
<br />. Calcium Channel Blockers
<br />o ...due to an increased risk of CHF. Concomitant administration of Sporanox and nisoldipine results in...
<br />. Other
<br />o Levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl) is known to prolong the QT...
<br />o Elevated concentrations of ergot alkaloids can cause ergotism...
<br />o Halofantrine has the potential to prolong the QT interval...
<br />o Sporanox may..."glucocorticosteroids such as budesonide, dexamethasone, fluticasone and"...
<br />o Cilostazol and eletriptan are CYP3A4 metabolized...
<br />o Fentanyl plasma concentrations could...
<br />. Pregnancy:Teratogenic Effects, Pregnancy Category C
<br />o During post-marketing experience, cases of congenital abnormalities have been reported.
<br />. Geriatric Use (new section)
<br />. Renal Impairment (new section)
<br />. Hepatic Impairment (new section)
<br />ADVERSE REACTIONS
<br />. Postmarketing Experience
<br />o Revised and table updated
<br />? Transient or permanent hearing loss BOXED WARNING
<br />. Drug Interactions
<br />o Coadministration of "levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)" addition
<br />o ..sudden death have occurred in patients using "levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)"...
<br />CONTRAINDICATIONS
<br />. Congestive Heart Failure (new section)
<br />. Drug Interactions
<br />o nisoldipine
<br />o levacetylmethadol
<br />(levomethadyl)
<br />o Ergot alkaloids metabolized...
<br />WARNINGS
<br />. Cardiac Dysrhythmias
<br />o levacetylmethadol (levomethadyl)
<br />. Cardiac Disease
<br />o Itraconazole has been shown to have a negative inotropic effect.
<br />o Sporanox has been associated with reports of congestive heart failure. In post-marketing...
<br />o Calcium channel blockers can have negative inotropic effects
<br />. Treatment of Severely Neutropenic Patients (new section)
<br />
<br />
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
Thanks for this, Nicole.

The fun thing about drug warnings is that drug companies are so legally liable for anything under the sun, they really put the kitchen sink in their PI to cover themselves.

Some warnings are more legit than others - like we all know steroids decrease bone mass.

But myasthenia gravis is listed on the PI's of almost all antibiotics.


I'll give you a great example: Check out the Allegra 30mg PI. "Accidental injury" is listed as a side effect. You know why? In clinical trials, kids were given Allegra. They were invited back for side effects reporting and the parents & kids were asked to list ANYTHING that could be related to taking of the drug.

And guess what? kids fall and get hurt. so it had to be listed on the PI. absurd, but this is how it works.

This isn't to dismiss warnings and side effects for drugs because many are very legit and very important to know about - but it really needs to be put in perspective to prevent hysteria.

The FDA pendulum has swung WAY to the conservative side due to public pressure around drug side effects. The result? less drugs are coming to the market. That doesn't help anybody.

If you drink too much water you can die. And the #1 reason for hospital admission for liver problems is due to tylenol.

Let's keep this in perspective so we have a healthy balance between being aware of side effects but not going off the deep end so that a glass of water needs a warning about drowning. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

*steps off soap box*
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
Thanks for this, Nicole.

The fun thing about drug warnings is that drug companies are so legally liable for anything under the sun, they really put the kitchen sink in their PI to cover themselves.

Some warnings are more legit than others - like we all know steroids decrease bone mass.

But myasthenia gravis is listed on the PI's of almost all antibiotics.


I'll give you a great example: Check out the Allegra 30mg PI. "Accidental injury" is listed as a side effect. You know why? In clinical trials, kids were given Allegra. They were invited back for side effects reporting and the parents & kids were asked to list ANYTHING that could be related to taking of the drug.

And guess what? kids fall and get hurt. so it had to be listed on the PI. absurd, but this is how it works.

This isn't to dismiss warnings and side effects for drugs because many are very legit and very important to know about - but it really needs to be put in perspective to prevent hysteria.

The FDA pendulum has swung WAY to the conservative side due to public pressure around drug side effects. The result? less drugs are coming to the market. That doesn't help anybody.

If you drink too much water you can die. And the #1 reason for hospital admission for liver problems is due to tylenol.

Let's keep this in perspective so we have a healthy balance between being aware of side effects but not going off the deep end so that a glass of water needs a warning about drowning. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

*steps off soap box*
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
Thanks for this, Nicole.

The fun thing about drug warnings is that drug companies are so legally liable for anything under the sun, they really put the kitchen sink in their PI to cover themselves.

Some warnings are more legit than others - like we all know steroids decrease bone mass.

But myasthenia gravis is listed on the PI's of almost all antibiotics.


I'll give you a great example: Check out the Allegra 30mg PI. "Accidental injury" is listed as a side effect. You know why? In clinical trials, kids were given Allegra. They were invited back for side effects reporting and the parents & kids were asked to list ANYTHING that could be related to taking of the drug.

And guess what? kids fall and get hurt. so it had to be listed on the PI. absurd, but this is how it works.

This isn't to dismiss warnings and side effects for drugs because many are very legit and very important to know about - but it really needs to be put in perspective to prevent hysteria.

The FDA pendulum has swung WAY to the conservative side due to public pressure around drug side effects. The result? less drugs are coming to the market. That doesn't help anybody.

If you drink too much water you can die. And the #1 reason for hospital admission for liver problems is due to tylenol.

Let's keep this in perspective so we have a healthy balance between being aware of side effects but not going off the deep end so that a glass of water needs a warning about drowning. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

*steps off soap box*
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
Thanks for this, Nicole.

The fun thing about drug warnings is that drug companies are so legally liable for anything under the sun, they really put the kitchen sink in their PI to cover themselves.

Some warnings are more legit than others - like we all know steroids decrease bone mass.

But myasthenia gravis is listed on the PI's of almost all antibiotics.


I'll give you a great example: Check out the Allegra 30mg PI. "Accidental injury" is listed as a side effect. You know why? In clinical trials, kids were given Allegra. They were invited back for side effects reporting and the parents & kids were asked to list ANYTHING that could be related to taking of the drug.

And guess what? kids fall and get hurt. so it had to be listed on the PI. absurd, but this is how it works.

This isn't to dismiss warnings and side effects for drugs because many are very legit and very important to know about - but it really needs to be put in perspective to prevent hysteria.

The FDA pendulum has swung WAY to the conservative side due to public pressure around drug side effects. The result? less drugs are coming to the market. That doesn't help anybody.

If you drink too much water you can die. And the #1 reason for hospital admission for liver problems is due to tylenol.

Let's keep this in perspective so we have a healthy balance between being aware of side effects but not going off the deep end so that a glass of water needs a warning about drowning. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

*steps off soap box*
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
Thanks for this, Nicole.
<br />
<br />The fun thing about drug warnings is that drug companies are so legally liable for anything under the sun, they really put the kitchen sink in their PI to cover themselves.
<br />
<br />Some warnings are more legit than others - like we all know steroids decrease bone mass.
<br />
<br />But myasthenia gravis is listed on the PI's of almost all antibiotics.
<br />
<br />
<br />I'll give you a great example: Check out the Allegra 30mg PI. "Accidental injury" is listed as a side effect. You know why? In clinical trials, kids were given Allegra. They were invited back for side effects reporting and the parents & kids were asked to list ANYTHING that could be related to taking of the drug.
<br />
<br />And guess what? kids fall and get hurt. so it had to be listed on the PI. absurd, but this is how it works.
<br />
<br />This isn't to dismiss warnings and side effects for drugs because many are very legit and very important to know about - but it really needs to be put in perspective to prevent hysteria.
<br />
<br />The FDA pendulum has swung WAY to the conservative side due to public pressure around drug side effects. The result? less drugs are coming to the market. That doesn't help anybody.
<br />
<br />If you drink too much water you can die. And the #1 reason for hospital admission for liver problems is due to tylenol.
<br />
<br />Let's keep this in perspective so we have a healthy balance between being aware of side effects but not going off the deep end so that a glass of water needs a warning about drowning. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
<br />
<br />*steps off soap box*
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
As a follow up:

<b>It's Time to Fight the 'PharmaScolds' </b>
Getting drugs to market is much harder than the media lets on

By DAVID A. SHAYWITZ and THOMAS P. STOSSEL

Relationships between university researchers and medical product companies are under relentless attack by critics who portray these associations as a morality play in which noble academics struggle to resist the dark, corrupting influence of industry. So why are leading disease-research foundations increasingly choosing to partner with industry rather than condemn it?

The answer is that by prioritizing the needs of patients, these medical philanthropies remain keenly aware of something academic critics of industry may have forgotten as they've scaled the university ladder. The goal of medical research is not to publish papers, but to develop new treatments for people suffering from disease. And translating laboratory research into new therapies, in the words of Robert Beall, president of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, is something "academics are really not good at."

After years of extensive public investment of billions of dollars in medical research, we have generated thousands of scientific papers, but few important new treatments for dreadful conditions such as pancreatic cancer and Alzheimer's disease.

To be sure, we have won some important battles. Statins and blood pressure medications have dramatically improved the prognosis of patients at risk for heart attacks, while powerful antiviral medicines mean HIV is no longer a death sentence.

But behind these spectacular achievements is an arduous, expensive and underappreciated journey, occurring largely in industry, from an original scientific concept to an effective drug or device. Most promising ideas either never pan out or result in modest, incremental advances. Human biology is maddeningly complex, laboratory models are necessarily simplistic, and scientific understanding remains painfully limited.

Discerning which ideas have value and capturing this value is extraordinarily challenging and has a depressingly high failure rate. The complexity of product development as well as the scientific sophistication, regulatory oversight, and manufacturing consistency required to pull this off are astounding. That any new useful medical products emerge at all is nearly miraculous.

Given the vital role of medical products companies and the magnitude of their challenges, one might imagine that this industry would be admired. To some extent, it is. Leading research organizations such as the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's disease proactively build bridges with industry leaders, solicit advice from industry scientists, and fund projects in industry labs.

But this enlightened view of industry is not widespread. This is largely because of the disproportionate influence of a coterie of prominent critics we have previously dubbed "pharmascolds," who routinely vilify the medical products industry and portray academics working with it as traitors and sellouts. These critics are pious academics, self-righteous medical journal editors, and opportunistic politicians and journalists. Their condemnation of anyone's legitimate profit -- it's all "corruption" in their book -- has in fact materially enhanced their own careers. They extrapolate from occasional behavioral lapses in industry -- which is equally, if not more prevalent, in universities -- to demonize the market and portray scientific medicine as an ascetic religion, which it is not.

The pharmascolds systematically discount the difficulties of product development. Meanwhile, each new barrier -- such as the National Institutes of Health's ban on paid consulting for industry -- erected between publicly funded researchers and companies, especially cash-strapped start-ups where many of the breakthroughs occur, slows the progress of potential treatments.

In response to these attacks, drug company spokespeople seem content to offer up measly press releases. When challenged by reporters, most academic consultants to industry refuse to comment or offer a meek explanation, instead of retorting that industry pays them because they add critically important value. This evasion has only emboldened industry critics, disheartened company employees, and caused even allies to wonder if there really is something to hide.

For the sake of the many patients whose diseases require innovative treatments -- and for the medical philanthropists determined to make it happen -- it's time for the leaders of the medical products industry to take pride in their purpose and start fighting back.

And discovering a few important new medicines wouldn't hurt either.

Dr. Shaywitz is a management consultant in New Jersey. Dr. Stossel is a professor of medicine at Harvard and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
As a follow up:

<b>It's Time to Fight the 'PharmaScolds' </b>
Getting drugs to market is much harder than the media lets on

By DAVID A. SHAYWITZ and THOMAS P. STOSSEL

Relationships between university researchers and medical product companies are under relentless attack by critics who portray these associations as a morality play in which noble academics struggle to resist the dark, corrupting influence of industry. So why are leading disease-research foundations increasingly choosing to partner with industry rather than condemn it?

The answer is that by prioritizing the needs of patients, these medical philanthropies remain keenly aware of something academic critics of industry may have forgotten as they've scaled the university ladder. The goal of medical research is not to publish papers, but to develop new treatments for people suffering from disease. And translating laboratory research into new therapies, in the words of Robert Beall, president of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, is something "academics are really not good at."

After years of extensive public investment of billions of dollars in medical research, we have generated thousands of scientific papers, but few important new treatments for dreadful conditions such as pancreatic cancer and Alzheimer's disease.

To be sure, we have won some important battles. Statins and blood pressure medications have dramatically improved the prognosis of patients at risk for heart attacks, while powerful antiviral medicines mean HIV is no longer a death sentence.

But behind these spectacular achievements is an arduous, expensive and underappreciated journey, occurring largely in industry, from an original scientific concept to an effective drug or device. Most promising ideas either never pan out or result in modest, incremental advances. Human biology is maddeningly complex, laboratory models are necessarily simplistic, and scientific understanding remains painfully limited.

Discerning which ideas have value and capturing this value is extraordinarily challenging and has a depressingly high failure rate. The complexity of product development as well as the scientific sophistication, regulatory oversight, and manufacturing consistency required to pull this off are astounding. That any new useful medical products emerge at all is nearly miraculous.

Given the vital role of medical products companies and the magnitude of their challenges, one might imagine that this industry would be admired. To some extent, it is. Leading research organizations such as the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's disease proactively build bridges with industry leaders, solicit advice from industry scientists, and fund projects in industry labs.

But this enlightened view of industry is not widespread. This is largely because of the disproportionate influence of a coterie of prominent critics we have previously dubbed "pharmascolds," who routinely vilify the medical products industry and portray academics working with it as traitors and sellouts. These critics are pious academics, self-righteous medical journal editors, and opportunistic politicians and journalists. Their condemnation of anyone's legitimate profit -- it's all "corruption" in their book -- has in fact materially enhanced their own careers. They extrapolate from occasional behavioral lapses in industry -- which is equally, if not more prevalent, in universities -- to demonize the market and portray scientific medicine as an ascetic religion, which it is not.

The pharmascolds systematically discount the difficulties of product development. Meanwhile, each new barrier -- such as the National Institutes of Health's ban on paid consulting for industry -- erected between publicly funded researchers and companies, especially cash-strapped start-ups where many of the breakthroughs occur, slows the progress of potential treatments.

In response to these attacks, drug company spokespeople seem content to offer up measly press releases. When challenged by reporters, most academic consultants to industry refuse to comment or offer a meek explanation, instead of retorting that industry pays them because they add critically important value. This evasion has only emboldened industry critics, disheartened company employees, and caused even allies to wonder if there really is something to hide.

For the sake of the many patients whose diseases require innovative treatments -- and for the medical philanthropists determined to make it happen -- it's time for the leaders of the medical products industry to take pride in their purpose and start fighting back.

And discovering a few important new medicines wouldn't hurt either.

Dr. Shaywitz is a management consultant in New Jersey. Dr. Stossel is a professor of medicine at Harvard and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
As a follow up:

<b>It's Time to Fight the 'PharmaScolds' </b>
Getting drugs to market is much harder than the media lets on

By DAVID A. SHAYWITZ and THOMAS P. STOSSEL

Relationships between university researchers and medical product companies are under relentless attack by critics who portray these associations as a morality play in which noble academics struggle to resist the dark, corrupting influence of industry. So why are leading disease-research foundations increasingly choosing to partner with industry rather than condemn it?

The answer is that by prioritizing the needs of patients, these medical philanthropies remain keenly aware of something academic critics of industry may have forgotten as they've scaled the university ladder. The goal of medical research is not to publish papers, but to develop new treatments for people suffering from disease. And translating laboratory research into new therapies, in the words of Robert Beall, president of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, is something "academics are really not good at."

After years of extensive public investment of billions of dollars in medical research, we have generated thousands of scientific papers, but few important new treatments for dreadful conditions such as pancreatic cancer and Alzheimer's disease.

To be sure, we have won some important battles. Statins and blood pressure medications have dramatically improved the prognosis of patients at risk for heart attacks, while powerful antiviral medicines mean HIV is no longer a death sentence.

But behind these spectacular achievements is an arduous, expensive and underappreciated journey, occurring largely in industry, from an original scientific concept to an effective drug or device. Most promising ideas either never pan out or result in modest, incremental advances. Human biology is maddeningly complex, laboratory models are necessarily simplistic, and scientific understanding remains painfully limited.

Discerning which ideas have value and capturing this value is extraordinarily challenging and has a depressingly high failure rate. The complexity of product development as well as the scientific sophistication, regulatory oversight, and manufacturing consistency required to pull this off are astounding. That any new useful medical products emerge at all is nearly miraculous.

Given the vital role of medical products companies and the magnitude of their challenges, one might imagine that this industry would be admired. To some extent, it is. Leading research organizations such as the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's disease proactively build bridges with industry leaders, solicit advice from industry scientists, and fund projects in industry labs.

But this enlightened view of industry is not widespread. This is largely because of the disproportionate influence of a coterie of prominent critics we have previously dubbed "pharmascolds," who routinely vilify the medical products industry and portray academics working with it as traitors and sellouts. These critics are pious academics, self-righteous medical journal editors, and opportunistic politicians and journalists. Their condemnation of anyone's legitimate profit -- it's all "corruption" in their book -- has in fact materially enhanced their own careers. They extrapolate from occasional behavioral lapses in industry -- which is equally, if not more prevalent, in universities -- to demonize the market and portray scientific medicine as an ascetic religion, which it is not.

The pharmascolds systematically discount the difficulties of product development. Meanwhile, each new barrier -- such as the National Institutes of Health's ban on paid consulting for industry -- erected between publicly funded researchers and companies, especially cash-strapped start-ups where many of the breakthroughs occur, slows the progress of potential treatments.

In response to these attacks, drug company spokespeople seem content to offer up measly press releases. When challenged by reporters, most academic consultants to industry refuse to comment or offer a meek explanation, instead of retorting that industry pays them because they add critically important value. This evasion has only emboldened industry critics, disheartened company employees, and caused even allies to wonder if there really is something to hide.

For the sake of the many patients whose diseases require innovative treatments -- and for the medical philanthropists determined to make it happen -- it's time for the leaders of the medical products industry to take pride in their purpose and start fighting back.

And discovering a few important new medicines wouldn't hurt either.

Dr. Shaywitz is a management consultant in New Jersey. Dr. Stossel is a professor of medicine at Harvard and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
As a follow up:

<b>It's Time to Fight the 'PharmaScolds' </b>
Getting drugs to market is much harder than the media lets on

By DAVID A. SHAYWITZ and THOMAS P. STOSSEL

Relationships between university researchers and medical product companies are under relentless attack by critics who portray these associations as a morality play in which noble academics struggle to resist the dark, corrupting influence of industry. So why are leading disease-research foundations increasingly choosing to partner with industry rather than condemn it?

The answer is that by prioritizing the needs of patients, these medical philanthropies remain keenly aware of something academic critics of industry may have forgotten as they've scaled the university ladder. The goal of medical research is not to publish papers, but to develop new treatments for people suffering from disease. And translating laboratory research into new therapies, in the words of Robert Beall, president of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, is something "academics are really not good at."

After years of extensive public investment of billions of dollars in medical research, we have generated thousands of scientific papers, but few important new treatments for dreadful conditions such as pancreatic cancer and Alzheimer's disease.

To be sure, we have won some important battles. Statins and blood pressure medications have dramatically improved the prognosis of patients at risk for heart attacks, while powerful antiviral medicines mean HIV is no longer a death sentence.

But behind these spectacular achievements is an arduous, expensive and underappreciated journey, occurring largely in industry, from an original scientific concept to an effective drug or device. Most promising ideas either never pan out or result in modest, incremental advances. Human biology is maddeningly complex, laboratory models are necessarily simplistic, and scientific understanding remains painfully limited.

Discerning which ideas have value and capturing this value is extraordinarily challenging and has a depressingly high failure rate. The complexity of product development as well as the scientific sophistication, regulatory oversight, and manufacturing consistency required to pull this off are astounding. That any new useful medical products emerge at all is nearly miraculous.

Given the vital role of medical products companies and the magnitude of their challenges, one might imagine that this industry would be admired. To some extent, it is. Leading research organizations such as the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's disease proactively build bridges with industry leaders, solicit advice from industry scientists, and fund projects in industry labs.

But this enlightened view of industry is not widespread. This is largely because of the disproportionate influence of a coterie of prominent critics we have previously dubbed "pharmascolds," who routinely vilify the medical products industry and portray academics working with it as traitors and sellouts. These critics are pious academics, self-righteous medical journal editors, and opportunistic politicians and journalists. Their condemnation of anyone's legitimate profit -- it's all "corruption" in their book -- has in fact materially enhanced their own careers. They extrapolate from occasional behavioral lapses in industry -- which is equally, if not more prevalent, in universities -- to demonize the market and portray scientific medicine as an ascetic religion, which it is not.

The pharmascolds systematically discount the difficulties of product development. Meanwhile, each new barrier -- such as the National Institutes of Health's ban on paid consulting for industry -- erected between publicly funded researchers and companies, especially cash-strapped start-ups where many of the breakthroughs occur, slows the progress of potential treatments.

In response to these attacks, drug company spokespeople seem content to offer up measly press releases. When challenged by reporters, most academic consultants to industry refuse to comment or offer a meek explanation, instead of retorting that industry pays them because they add critically important value. This evasion has only emboldened industry critics, disheartened company employees, and caused even allies to wonder if there really is something to hide.

For the sake of the many patients whose diseases require innovative treatments -- and for the medical philanthropists determined to make it happen -- it's time for the leaders of the medical products industry to take pride in their purpose and start fighting back.

And discovering a few important new medicines wouldn't hurt either.

Dr. Shaywitz is a management consultant in New Jersey. Dr. Stossel is a professor of medicine at Harvard and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
As a follow up:
<br />
<br /><b>It's Time to Fight the 'PharmaScolds' </b>
<br />Getting drugs to market is much harder than the media lets on
<br />
<br />By DAVID A. SHAYWITZ and THOMAS P. STOSSEL
<br />
<br />Relationships between university researchers and medical product companies are under relentless attack by critics who portray these associations as a morality play in which noble academics struggle to resist the dark, corrupting influence of industry. So why are leading disease-research foundations increasingly choosing to partner with industry rather than condemn it?
<br />
<br />The answer is that by prioritizing the needs of patients, these medical philanthropies remain keenly aware of something academic critics of industry may have forgotten as they've scaled the university ladder. The goal of medical research is not to publish papers, but to develop new treatments for people suffering from disease. And translating laboratory research into new therapies, in the words of Robert Beall, president of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, is something "academics are really not good at."
<br />
<br />After years of extensive public investment of billions of dollars in medical research, we have generated thousands of scientific papers, but few important new treatments for dreadful conditions such as pancreatic cancer and Alzheimer's disease.
<br />
<br />To be sure, we have won some important battles. Statins and blood pressure medications have dramatically improved the prognosis of patients at risk for heart attacks, while powerful antiviral medicines mean HIV is no longer a death sentence.
<br />
<br />But behind these spectacular achievements is an arduous, expensive and underappreciated journey, occurring largely in industry, from an original scientific concept to an effective drug or device. Most promising ideas either never pan out or result in modest, incremental advances. Human biology is maddeningly complex, laboratory models are necessarily simplistic, and scientific understanding remains painfully limited.
<br />
<br />Discerning which ideas have value and capturing this value is extraordinarily challenging and has a depressingly high failure rate. The complexity of product development as well as the scientific sophistication, regulatory oversight, and manufacturing consistency required to pull this off are astounding. That any new useful medical products emerge at all is nearly miraculous.
<br />
<br />Given the vital role of medical products companies and the magnitude of their challenges, one might imagine that this industry would be admired. To some extent, it is. Leading research organizations such as the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's disease proactively build bridges with industry leaders, solicit advice from industry scientists, and fund projects in industry labs.
<br />
<br />But this enlightened view of industry is not widespread. This is largely because of the disproportionate influence of a coterie of prominent critics we have previously dubbed "pharmascolds," who routinely vilify the medical products industry and portray academics working with it as traitors and sellouts. These critics are pious academics, self-righteous medical journal editors, and opportunistic politicians and journalists. Their condemnation of anyone's legitimate profit -- it's all "corruption" in their book -- has in fact materially enhanced their own careers. They extrapolate from occasional behavioral lapses in industry -- which is equally, if not more prevalent, in universities -- to demonize the market and portray scientific medicine as an ascetic religion, which it is not.
<br />
<br />The pharmascolds systematically discount the difficulties of product development. Meanwhile, each new barrier -- such as the National Institutes of Health's ban on paid consulting for industry -- erected between publicly funded researchers and companies, especially cash-strapped start-ups where many of the breakthroughs occur, slows the progress of potential treatments.
<br />
<br />In response to these attacks, drug company spokespeople seem content to offer up measly press releases. When challenged by reporters, most academic consultants to industry refuse to comment or offer a meek explanation, instead of retorting that industry pays them because they add critically important value. This evasion has only emboldened industry critics, disheartened company employees, and caused even allies to wonder if there really is something to hide.
<br />
<br />For the sake of the many patients whose diseases require innovative treatments -- and for the medical philanthropists determined to make it happen -- it's time for the leaders of the medical products industry to take pride in their purpose and start fighting back.
<br />
<br />And discovering a few important new medicines wouldn't hurt either.
<br />
<br />Dr. Shaywitz is a management consultant in New Jersey. Dr. Stossel is a professor of medicine at Harvard and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
 
M

mom2lillian

New member
All very true and helpful. Unfortunately many patients dont know or read the safety info at all assuming their doctor or pharmacy will catch anything important like interactions etc. Having worked with a perfectly brilliant person whom accidentally took two drugs together and died it can be easier than many of us who might be on cocktails believe to overdo it.

I think posting these and any other new updates if nothing else will hopefully keep us all thinking about what we are taking, what we should be mindful of and what not to do.

Thanks for follow up article and I couldnt agree with it more
 
M

mom2lillian

New member
All very true and helpful. Unfortunately many patients dont know or read the safety info at all assuming their doctor or pharmacy will catch anything important like interactions etc. Having worked with a perfectly brilliant person whom accidentally took two drugs together and died it can be easier than many of us who might be on cocktails believe to overdo it.

I think posting these and any other new updates if nothing else will hopefully keep us all thinking about what we are taking, what we should be mindful of and what not to do.

Thanks for follow up article and I couldnt agree with it more
 
M

mom2lillian

New member
All very true and helpful. Unfortunately many patients dont know or read the safety info at all assuming their doctor or pharmacy will catch anything important like interactions etc. Having worked with a perfectly brilliant person whom accidentally took two drugs together and died it can be easier than many of us who might be on cocktails believe to overdo it.

I think posting these and any other new updates if nothing else will hopefully keep us all thinking about what we are taking, what we should be mindful of and what not to do.

Thanks for follow up article and I couldnt agree with it more
 
M

mom2lillian

New member
All very true and helpful. Unfortunately many patients dont know or read the safety info at all assuming their doctor or pharmacy will catch anything important like interactions etc. Having worked with a perfectly brilliant person whom accidentally took two drugs together and died it can be easier than many of us who might be on cocktails believe to overdo it.

I think posting these and any other new updates if nothing else will hopefully keep us all thinking about what we are taking, what we should be mindful of and what not to do.

Thanks for follow up article and I couldnt agree with it more
 
M

mom2lillian

New member
All very true and helpful. Unfortunately many patients dont know or read the safety info at all assuming their doctor or pharmacy will catch anything important like interactions etc. Having worked with a perfectly brilliant person whom accidentally took two drugs together and died it can be easier than many of us who might be on cocktails believe to overdo it.
<br />
<br />I think posting these and any other new updates if nothing else will hopefully keep us all thinking about what we are taking, what we should be mindful of and what not to do.
<br />
<br />Thanks for follow up article and I couldnt agree with it more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top