Owing to summer vacation, today’s post updates a 2011 post and a 2013 post with some new information.
Anti-inflammatory drugs are among the most well-loved products in the modern medicine cabinet. They can provide good pain control, reduce inflammation, and eliminate fever. We give non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in infancy, continuing through childhood and then adulthood for the aches and pains of modern living. It’s the later stages of life where NSAIDs are used most frequently, usually in the treatment of joint disease like osteoarthritis, which eventually affects pretty much everyone. Over 17 million Americans use NSAIDs on a daily basis, and this number will grow as the population ages. While they’re widely used, they also have a long list of side effects. Not only can they cause stomach ulcers and bleeding by damaging the lining of the gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular risks are also significant.
It was the arrival (and withdrawal) of the drugs Bextra (valdecoxib) and Vioxx (rofecoxib) that led to a much better understanding of the potential for these drugs to increase the risks of heart attacks and strokes. And it’s now well-documented that these effects are not limited to the “COX-2″ drugs – almost all NSAIDs, including the old standbys we have used for years, raise the risk of heart attacks and strokes. (more…)
Me, ten minutes after the end of this post. EXTREME!
It is summer vacation for me in Eastern Oregon at Sunriver. Unbelievable geology, fantastic hikes, great biking, wonderful golf, delicious beer and good food. The thesaurus fails me for superlatives. It is hard to get too riled up about all things SCAM to produce a blog entry when I could be doing one or all of the above. I really don’t want to do this. Sadly, David keeps threatening me with the video he has of me touting the benefits of Integrative Medicine with its holistic approach to health care, and I just can’t have that published on the ‘net. So some brief speculation to fill the time between golf and a pint of IPA overlooking the Sisters.
Ethics, and the purpose of SBM
Steve started this blog in 2008 in part because he realized that evidence-based medicine was inadequate for the task of evaluating pseudo-medicines. He coined the term ‘science-based medicine’ with the realization that for fantastical therapies like acupuncture or homeopathy, all the potential biases and flaws in the evidence from clinical studies could result in pseudo-medicines appearing effective when at heart they are all Oakland California.
I do not suppose there could be science-based ethics. One person’s ethical certainty is another’s belly laugh. I remember a grand rounds on human cloning years ago and they had, among others, a priest discussing the ethics of human cloning, and I thought at the time there would be few speakers with less legitimacy. And really, I can see no harm in cloning an army of zombie super soldiers, especially if they were under my control.
Still, one of the issues I remain amazed at is how many clinical trials testing pseudo-medicines are approved by institutional review boards (IRB). (more…)
The statin hypothesis is that statins reduce cardiac risk more than can be explained by the reduction in LDL cholesterol. That hypothesis has been overturned by a new study.
The consensus of mainstream medicine is that a high blood level of LDL cholesterol is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and that lowering high levels can help with prevention and treatment. Statins have been proven effective for lowering cholesterol levels and for decreasing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. I recently wrote about the new guidelines for statin therapy.
Currently half of American men between the ages of 65 and 74 are taking statins, and 71 percent of adults with heart disease and 54 percent of adults with high cholesterol take a cholesterol-lowering drug.
There is still a fringe group of a few maverick “cholesterol skeptics” who think lowering cholesterol is useless or counterproductive, but the evidence shows they are wrong.
Extreme rotation of the atlas on the axis (at the atlantoaxial joint) stretches the vertebral artery. In layman’s terms, 40% of a hanging.
I am off to Chicago for 5 days to wow the SMACC crowd with my ID/SBM acumen. I hope. Given that most of my multiple-personalities do not seem to be able to get any work done, I am forced to write a brief post this week, limited by the battery life on my MacBook Air. Whatever I get down on paper? pixels? RAM? before the battery dies as I fly over the Rockies will be the post. It is times like this I wish I had Gorskian typing skills.
SBM has discussed the many limitations of chiropractic: the low grades for entry into chiropractic school, the inadequate training, their reason d’être, subluxations and their adjustments being divorced from reality, the lack of efficacy of chiropractic for any process beyond low back pain (and even that is no better than safer interventions), the fondness of chiropractors for other useless pseudo-medicines, and their opposition to vaccines.
Hm. When I put it like that chiropractic does appear a little sketchy. But is chiropractic safe? It is a hands-on intervention, for a brief period of time applying the same force to the neck as about 40% of hanging from the neck until dead. So there is certainly the potential for chiropractic to cause harm. (more…)
Ask your pharmacist if nothing is right for you. (HT @leachkathleen)
On April 21 and 22, the FDA held a public hearing:
to obtain information and comments from stakeholders about the current use of human drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic, as well as the Agency’s regulatory framework for such products. . . . FDA is seeking participants for the public hearing and written comments from all interested parties, including, but not limited to, consumers, patients, caregivers, health care professionals, patient groups, and industry.
The FTC recently announced that it, too, is wading into the homeopathic waters. The FTC, which regulates advertising of homeopathic products, will hold a public workshop on September 21 in Washington, DC, “to examine advertising for over-the-counter (OTC) homeopathic products.” Like the FDA, it will also accept public comments online.
All of this regulatory buzz caused the FDA Law Blog to take notice. (The blog is hosted by a law firm specializing in food and drug regulation law.) A post titled “Will FTC Kill Homeopathic Products – or Will FDA?” gave this assessment:
Bottom line, if the FTC holds homeopathic products to the same scientific standards that are applied to claims for other OTC products like dietary supplements, as the FTC appears inclined to do . . . few if any homeopathic products will pass the test.
When I wrote a week ago about the sham that is “right-to-try”, one criticism (among many) that I made of these misguided, profoundly patient-unfriendly laws was that I have as yet been unable to find a single example of a patient who has managed to obtain access to an experimental therapeutic through such a law, much less been helped by it. So-called “right-to-try” laws, of course, claim to provide a mechanism by which patients with terminal illnesses can obtain access to experimental therapeutics not yet approved by the FDA but still in clinical trials. They are, as I’ve pointed out, a cruel sham, placebo legislation that makes lawmakers feel as though they’ve done something good but do nothing of substance for patients while providing them with false hope. The federal government through the FDA controls drug approval, which means that states can’t compel a drug company to provide a drug to a patient, and most drug companies would not want to risk jeopardizing approval of their drug, which is what could happen if they grant access to an investigational drug under right-to-try and the patient suffers an adverse event. After all, the success rate for drugs that have passed phase 1 (which is all that right-to-try requires) in phase 3 trials is only on the order of 9-12%, meaning that that’s the most optimistic probability that such drugs would benefit a patient. In reality, it’s almost certainly much, much lower.
Alone of all the regular contributors to this blog, I am a surgeon. Specifically, I’m a surgical oncologist specializing in breast cancer surgery, which makes me one of those hyper-specialized docs that are sometimes mocked as not being “real” doctors. Of course, the road to my current practice and research focus was long and involved quite a few years doing general surgery, so it is not as though I am unfamiliar with a wide variety of surgical procedures. Heck, I’m sure I could do an old-fashioned appendectomy, bowel resection, or cholecystectomy if I had to. Just don’t ask me to use the da Vinci robot or, with the exception of the case of a cholecystectomy, a laparoscope, although, given the popularity of robotic surgery, I sometimes joke that I really, really need to figure out how to do breast surgery with the robot. After all, if plastic surgeons are using it for breast reconstruction, surely the cancer surgeon should get in on the action.
I keed. I keed.
Clinical trials of surgical procedures and placebo controls
I have, however, from time to time addressed the issue of science-based surgery, and this weekend seems like as good a time to do so again, given that I just came across an article in the BMJ reporting a systematic review of the use of placebos in surgical trials. It’s a year old, but worth discussing. Before I get to discussing the nitty-gritty of this particular trial, let me just note that the evaluation of surgical procedures for efficacy and safety tends to be more difficult to accomplish than it is for medications, mainly because it’s much harder to do the gold standard clinical trial for surgical procedures, the double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. The two most problematic aspects of designing such an RCT in surgery, as you might imagine, are the blinding, particularly if it’s a trial of a surgical procedure versus no surgical procedure, and persuading patients to agree. I’ll deal with the latter first, because I have direct personal experience with it. (more…)
Last year, I did several posts on what I consider to be a profoundly misguided and potentially harmful type of law known as “right-to-try.” Beginning about a year and a half ago, promoted by the libertarian think tank known as the Goldwater Institute, right-to-try laws began popping up in state legislatures, which I likened to Dallas Buyers Club laws. Both Jann Bellamy and I wrote about how these laws are far more likely to do harm than good, and that is a position that I maintain today. The idea behind these laws is to give terminally ill patients access to experimental drugs—in some cases drugs that have only passed phase I testing—that might help them. It’s an understandable, albeit flawed argument. After all, it’s perfectly understandable why terminally ill patients would fight for drugs that give them hope, and it’s just as understandable why politicians and the public would see such a goal as a good thing. In practice, as I will explain again in the context of this update, such laws are far more likely to harm patients than help them. Indeed, as you will see, in the year since the first wave of right-to-try laws have passed, not a single patient that I can find has obtained access to experimental drugs under a right-to-try law, much less been helped by them.
Unfortunately, given how effectively “right to try” has been sold on grounds of providing terminally ill patients hope and as a matter of personal freedom, it’s clear that this wave is not going to abate. Since Colorado passed the very first right-to-try law almost exactly a year ago today, a total of 17 more states now have passed passed similar legislation, the most recent being Tennessee, and 22 others have introduced legislation. It’s a good bet that right-to-try will pass in all of those states, because, as I’ve explained many times before and in many interviews, if you don’t understand clinical trial ethics and science, opposing the concept of right-to-try comes across like opposing Mom, apple pie, and the American flag, and leaves opponents open to false—but seemingly convincing—charges of callousness towards the terminally ill on the order of enjoying drop kicking puppies through flaming goalposts.
Gordie Howe in his Red Wings days.
Here I am in Philadelphia attending the 2015 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) meeting to imbibe the latest basic and translational science about oncology. So what am I doing in my non-conference time? I’m holed up in my hotel room near Rittenhouse Square writing a DoD Grant and this post. Fortunately, I am nearly done with the grant, with nothing I can do until I receive one last letter of support from a person who, as much as he’s my bud, is incredibly annoying and always makes me sit on pins and needles waiting for his letter of support. (Those of you who’ve applied for a lot of grants know what I mean.) Then tomorrow I will have to assemble the PDF package to get to my grants office two days before the deadline, which is pushing it to make sure they get it uploaded to Grants.gov in time. Fun times.
With the Stanley Cup playoffs just getting underway (complete with the ugly faux “Stanley Cup” made out of garbage cans our next door neighbor’s son puts on his lawn every year, bathed in red light for the Red Wings), it’s also the perfect time to revisit a story I’ve written about a couple of times before right here on this very blog. I’m referring (this time) to the story of hockey legend Gordie Howe and news stories of his “miraculous” recovery from a serious stroke suffered back in October due to treatment at a stem cell clinic in Tijuana back in December. Of course, when I looked into it, there were a lot of holes in the story and clearly a lot of hype on the part of several parties: Howe’s son Murray Howe, whose love for his father apparently blinded him to some rather obvious issues with the care that his father was receiving and whether it was responsible for his recovery; Stemedica, the American stem cell company based in San Diego that sells its stem cells to a dubious Mexican stem cell company, Novastem, for use outside its U.S. clinical trials; and, of course, the credulous sports media, led by that most credulous of the credulous (with respect to Gordie Howe), Keith Olbermann, who was none too pleased with a certain not-so-pseudonymous “friend” of SBM and completely embarrassed himself in the process of attacking anyone who questioned whether stem cells caused Howe’s recovery. The whole story did have one salutary effect, though. It introduced me to a real stem cell scientist, Paul Knoepfler, who did a guest post for us.
It’s been a couple of months since I last paid attention to what was going on with Gordie Howe’s recovery. Fortunately, our very own Scott Gavura tweaked me by sending me a story by Avis Favaro and Elizabeth St. Philip that appeared over the weekend in the Toronto Star, entitled “A closer look at the startling recovery of Gordie Howe.” Accompanying the story is a broadcast on CTV’s W5 entitled “Gordie’s Comeback”. (See part 1, part 2, part 3.) Also accompanying all of this is a press release discussing how a Canadian stem cell researcher visited Novastem and left unimpressed.
Opioids are widely available as prescription drugs for pain: hydrocodone (e.g., Vicodin), oxycodone (e.g., OxyContin, Percocet), morphine (e.g., Kadian, Avinza), and codeine. Heroin, which has no medically approved use, is also an opioid. Unfortunately, opioids are also widely abused.
How enticing it is to imagine a magic bullet for opioid drug addiction. Addiction causes huge social problems. Yet it is hard to treat and suffers from a stigma that does not attach to other chronic diseases, like diabetes. Drugs like naltrexone, methadone and buprenorphine, as well as behavioral therapies, are common opioid addiction treatments, although the relapse rate for addiction treatment is high.
One of the barriers to treatment is the addict’s fear of the side effects of withdrawal, which can be extremely uncomfortable, including nausea, cramping and vomiting. It is no wonder, then, that the opioid addict and his family would be drawn to a detoxification procedure advertised as both rapid, to speed up the initiation of relapse-prevention therapy, and relatively painless: anesthesia-assisted rapid opioid detox (AAROD), sometimes called ultra-rapid detox, or even just plain rapid detox, although the latter also refers to detox under lighter sedation.