Hat tip to PM, again — do go read it — but here is a snippet:
. . . in July, Norwegian researchers reported that another trial showed that patients taking Vytorin died from cancer more often than those taking a placebo, or sugar pill. In two other clinical trials still going on, patients taking Vytorin have also been more likely to die from cancer than those not taking it. In all, 136 of about 11,000 people taking Vytorin in the three trials have died of various kinds of cancer, compared with 95 out of 11,000 who took placebo or simvastatin alone.
With little long-term data about ezetimibe’s risks, scientists are scrambling to find an explanation for the seeming cancer link. Some oncologists agree with Merck and Schering that the cancer findings are probably due to chance.
But other scientists say they have a plausible explanation for why ezetimibe may cause cancer. Ezetimibe works by blocking the intestine from absorbing cholesterol. But it also blocks the absorption of closely related compounds called plant sterols, which are found in nuts and vegetables. Some studies have shown that people who eat large amounts of plant sterols have lower cancer rates than those who do not.
Dr. Peter G. Bradford, a pharmacologist at the University of Buffalo who has extensively studied plant sterols, said that in laboratory tests, sterols promote cell death in a way that could make them valuable anti-cancer agents as weapons against tumors. By blocking sterol absorption, ezetimibe could be promoting cancer , he said.
“One might envision that link,” he said. “This is a very large question.” . . .
[Emphasis supplied.]
We’ll know much more, by tomorrow, at noon.
Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: New York Times SEAS Cancer Vytorin Zetia non-effective?
Hat tip to PM, again — do go read it — but here is a snippet:
. . . in July, Norwegian researchers reported that another trial showed that patients taking Vytorin died from cancer more often than those taking a placebo, or sugar pill. In two other clinical trials still going on, patients taking Vytorin have also been more likely to die from cancer than those not taking it. In all, 136 of about 11,000 people taking Vytorin in the three trials have died of various kinds of cancer, compared with 95 out of 11,000 who took placebo or simvastatin alone.
With little long-term data about ezetimibe’s risks, scientists are scrambling to find an explanation for the seeming cancer link. Some oncologists agree with Merck and Schering that the cancer findings are probably due to chance.
But other scientists say they have a plausible explanation for why ezetimibe may cause cancer. Ezetimibe works by blocking the intestine from absorbing cholesterol. But it also blocks the absorption of closely related compounds called plant sterols, which are found in nuts and vegetables. Some studies have shown that people who eat large amounts of plant sterols have lower cancer rates than those who do not.
Dr. Peter G. Bradford, a pharmacologist at the University of Buffalo who has extensively studied plant sterols, said that in laboratory tests, sterols promote cell death in a way that could make them valuable anti-cancer agents as weapons against tumors. By blocking sterol absorption, ezetimibe could be promoting cancer , he said.
“One might envision that link,” he said. “This is a very large question.” . . .
[Emphasis supplied.]
We’ll know much more, by tomorrow, at noon.
Categories: New York Times SEAS Cancer Vytorin Zetia non-effective?
Apparently, not in Canada – where very little can be said, in such ads. There’s a Reuters story out tonight, suggesting that Schering’s Canadian Nasonex sales weren’t helped (much) by the Canadian version of permissable DTC advertising.
First, in Canada, there is far less payer-diversity (think almost single-payer) — so, there is far more centralized control over perscription reimbursment-levels, and more uniform protocols for disease management. Even more importantly, in Canada, while DTC ads may mention a drug’s name — the ads cannot mention which conditions or diseases the drugs are intended to treat. Here in the U.S., the conditions and diseases may be mentioned — as well as the use of vignettes with actors playing doctors.
And so, the part of the article that discusses Canada’s new study should, in truth, be limited to evaluating the Canadian experience — as the advertising regulations are so vastly different there, than the rules that govern our U.S. ads.
As to the Kaiser Family Foundation findings — here in the U.S. — consider this contervailing piece of (peer-reviewed, New England Journal of Medicine published) evidence [click to enlarge image]:
More background on it, here. . . . but it is worthy of note that only the U.S., Canada and New Zealand permit any DTC advertising — and thus we are in the distinct minority — allowing drug manuafacturers to (at least vicariously) enter the traditionally-private mix of discussions between a patient and his or her physician. . . .
Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: DTC Canada Nasonex Vytorin Zetia Quebec Rueters Septemb
Apparently, not in Canada – where very little can be said, in such ads. There’s a Reuters story out tonight, suggesting that Schering’s Canadian Nasonex sales weren’t helped (much) by the Canadian version of permissable DTC advertising.
First, in Canada, there is far less payer-diversity (think almost single-payer) — so, there is far more centralized control over perscription reimbursment-levels, and more uniform protocols for disease management. Even more importantly, in Canada, while DTC ads may mention a drug’s name — the ads cannot mention which conditions or diseases the drugs are intended to treat. Here in the U.S., the conditions and diseases may be mentioned — as well as the use of vignettes with actors playing doctors.
And so, the part of the article that discusses Canada’s new study should, in truth, be limited to evaluating the Canadian experience — as the advertising regulations are so vastly different there, than the rules that govern our U.S. ads.
As to the Kaiser Family Foundation findings — here in the U.S. — consider this contervailing piece of (peer-reviewed, New England Journal of Medicine published) evidence [click to enlarge image]:
More background on it, here. . . . but it is worthy of note that only the U.S., Canada and New Zealand permit any DTC advertising — and thus we are in the distinct minority — allowing drug manuafacturers to (at least vicariously) enter the traditionally-private mix of discussions between a patient and his or her physician. . . .
Categories: DTC Canada Nasonex Vytorin Zetia Quebec Rueters Septemb
