Mea culpa to the max. I completely forgot that today is my day to post on SBM, so I’m going to have to cheat a little. Here is a link to a recent article by yours truly that appeared on Virtual Mentor, an online ethics journal published by the AMA with major input from medical students. Note that I didn’t write the initial scenario; that was provided to me for my comments. The contents for the entire issue, titled “Complementary and Alternative Therapies—Medicine’s Response,” are here. Check out some of the other contributors (I was unaware of who they would be when I agreed to write my piece).
Archive for Basic Science
Everything you know may be wrong. Well, not really, but reading the research of John Ioannidis does make you wonder. His work, concentrated on research about research, is a popular topic here at SBM. And that’s because he’s focused on improving the way evidence is brought to bear on decision-making. His most famous papers get to the core of questioning how we know what we know (or what we assume) to be evidence. (more…)
The following post appeared earlier this week at my Chemical & Engineering News CENtral Science blog, Terra Sigillata. For some odd reason – perhaps this week’s frantic academic schedule of commencement activities – it was not highly read there. I thought that our Science-Based Medicine readers would appreciate it because this new prescription drug is derived from a family of fungi that have been used in traditional Chinese medicine. A few editorial changes have been made later in the post to increase the relevance to our readership here.
A very well-written review of an orally-active drug for multiple sclerosis has just appeared in the April 25th issue of the Journal of Natural Products, a joint publication of the American Chemical Society and the American Society of Pharmacognosy.
The review, Fingolimod (FTY720): A Recently Approved Multiple Sclerosis Drug Based on a Fungal Secondary Metabolite, is co-authored by Cherilyn R. Strader, Cedric J. Pearce, and Nicholas H. Oberlies. In the interest of full disclosure, the latter two gentlemen are research collaborators of mine from Mycosynthetix, Inc. (Hillsborough, NC) and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. My esteemed colleague and senior author, Dr. Oberlies, modestly deflected my request to blog about the publication of this review.
So, I am instead writing this post to promote the excellent work of his student and first author, Cherilyn Strader. As of [Wednesday] morning, this review article is first on the list of most-read articles in the Journal. This status is noteworthy because the review has moved ahead of even the famed David Newman and Gordon Cragg review of natural product-sourced drugs of the last 25 years, the JNP equivalent of Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon (the album known for its record 14-year stay on the Billboard music charts.).
… animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the emperor; (b) embalmed ones; (c) those that are trained; (d) suckling pigs; (e) mermaids; (f) fabulous ones; (g) stray dogs; (h) those that are included in this classification; (i) those that tremble as if they were mad; (j) innumerable ones; (k) those drawn with a very fine camel’s-hair brush; (l) etcetera; (m) those that have just broken the flower vase; (n) those that at a distance resemble flies.
— Jorge Luis Borges (1899–1986)1
Not too long ago, I came across a disease taxonomy proposed by a certain East-West Medical Research Institute (EWMRI), that includes the kind of fantastic afflictions — such as “running piglet” disorder — fit for the best Borgesian list.
This obscure institute, located at Kyung Hee University in Seoul, Korea, is one of the 800 WHO Collaborating Centres designated to carry out various activities in support of the Organization’s programs. With the collaboration of China, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, and the US, this center is working to incorporate medieval Asian disease nomenclature to the 11th version of the International Classification of Disease (ICD-11).
As a pharmacist, when I dispense medication, it’s my responsibility to ensure that the medication is safe and appropriate for the patient. There are numerous checks we go through including verifying the dose, ensuring there are no interactions with other drugs, and verifying the patient has no history of allergy to the product prescribed. Asking about allergies is a mandatory question for every new patient.
Penicillin is one of the oldest antibiotics still in use despite widespread bacterial resistance. Multiple analogs of penicillin have been developed to change its effectiveness, or improve its tolerability. And other classes of antibiotics (e.g., cephalosporins) share some structural features with penicillin. These products are widely used for both routine and serious bacterial infections. Unfortunately, allergies to penicillin are widely reported. Statistically, one in ten of you reading this post will respond that you’re allergic to penicillin. Yet the incidence of anaphylaxis to penicillin is estimated to be only 1 to 5 per 10,000. So why do so many people believe they’re allergic to penicillin? Much of it comes down to how we define “allergy.”
As hard as it is to believe, it’s been nearly a year since Steve Novella, Kimball Atwood, and I were invited to meet with the director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), Dr. Josephine Briggs. Depending upon the day, sometimes it seems like just yesterday; sometimes it seems like ancient history. For more details, read Steve’s account of our visit, but the CliffsNotes version is that we had a pleasant conversation in which we discussed our objections to how NCCAM funds dubious science and advocacy of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). When we left the NIH campus, our impression was that Dr. Briggs is well-meaning and dedicated to increasing the scientific rigor of NCCAM studies but doesn’t understand the depths of pseudoscience that constitute much of what passes for CAM. We were also somewhat optimistic that we had at least managed to communicate some of our most pressing practical concerns, chief among which is the anti-vaccine bent of so much of CAM and how we hoped that NCCAM would at least combat some of that on its website.
Looking at the NCCAM website, I see no evidence that there has been any move to combat the anti-vaccine tendencies of CAM by posting pro-vaccination pieces or articles refuting common anti-vaccine misinformation. Of all the topics we discussed, it was clearest that everyone, including Dr. Briggs, agreed that the NCCAM can’t be perceived as supporting anti-vaccine viewpoints, and although it doesn’t explicitly do so, neither does it do much to combat the anti-vaccine viewpoints so ingrained in CAM. As far as I’m concerned, I’m with Kimball in asserting that NCCAM’s silence on the matter is in effect tacit approval of anti-vaccine viewpoints. Be that as it may, not long afterward, Dr. Briggs revealed that she had met with homeopaths around the same time she had met with us, suggesting that we were simply brought in so that she could say she had met with “both sides.” Later, she gave a talk to the 25th Anniversary Convention of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP), which is truly a bastion of pseudoscience.
In other words, I couldn’t help but get the sinking feeling that we had been played. Not that we weren’t mildly suspicious when we traveled to Bethesda, but from our perspective we really didn’t have a choice: if we were serious about our mission to promote science-based medicine, Dr. Briggs’ was truly an offer we could not refuse. We had to go. Period. I can’t speak for Steve or Kimball, but I was excited to go as well. Never in my wildest dreams had it occurred to me that the director of NCCAM would even notice what we were writing, much less take it seriously enough to invite us out for a visit. I bring all this up because last week NCCAM did something that might provide an indication of whether it’s changed, whether Dr. Briggs has truly embraced the idea that rigorous science should infuse NCCAM and all that it does, let the chips fall where they may. Last week, NCCAM released its five year strategic plan for 2011 to 2015.
Truly, it’s a case of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
What does honey bee colony collapse disorder have to do with a potential new cancer treatment?
They both relate – in a convoluted manner – to an old antibacterial drug called nitroxoline.
True to my devotion as a natural product pharmacologist, I’m proud to say that new life would not have come to nitroxoline had not a fungal natural product called fumagillin been studied as an antiangiogenic anticancer drug – one that inhibits the formation of new blood vessels.
A mouse leukemia retrovirus, xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV retrovirus), has been under consideration as a possible cause of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS, and also prostate cancer). In a study published in Science in October 2009, Lombardi et al. found XMRV in 67% of CFS patients and 3.7% of controls. Several subsequent studies in the UK, the Netherlands, and the US — by lead authors Erlwein, van Kuppleveld, Groom , Switzer and Henrich — failed to find XMRV at all.
Now a new study published in Retrovirology by Hue et al. shows that the original positive findings were likely erroneous and due to contamination in the lab. The complete article is available online.
We provide several independent lines of evidence that XMRV detected by sensitive PCR methods in patient samples is the likely result of PCR contamination with mouse DNA and that the described clones of XMRV arose from the tumour cell line 22Rv1, which was probably infected with XMRV during xenografting in mice. We propose that XMRV might not be a genuine human pathogen.
During the most recent kerfuffle about whether or not Evidence-Based Medicine can legitimately claim to be science-based medicine, it became clear to me that a whole, new round of discussion and documentation is necessary. This is frustrating because I’ve already done it several times, most recently less than a year ago. Moreover, I’ve provided a table of links to the whole series at the bottom of each post*…Never mind, here goes, and I hope this will be the last time it is necessary because I’ll try to make this the “go to” series of posts for any future such confusions.
The points made in this series, most of which link to posts in which I originally made them, are in response to arguments from statistician Steve Simon, whose essay, Is there something better than Evidence Based Medicine out there?, was the topic of Dr. Gorski’s rebuttal on Monday of this week, and also from several of the comments following that rebuttal. Mr. Simon has since revised his original essay to an extent, which I’ll take into account. I’ll frame this as a series of assertions by those who doubt that EBM is deficient in the ways that we at SBM have argued, followed in each case by my response.
First, a disclaimer: I don’t mean to gang up on Mr. Simon personally; others hold opinions similar to his, but his essay just happens to be a convenient starting point for this discussion. FWIW, prior to this week I perused a bit of his blog, after having read one of his comments here, and found it to be well written and informative.