Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medical Xpress)   Latest study from the N.S. Sherlock Institute says workers fare worse when popular medications leave the market. Now STFU and GBTW. It's all in your head anyway, and we cut your psych benefits years ago   ( medicalxpress.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Labor, joint pain, Economics, Opioid, Heroin, Vioxx, Diclofenac, Skira  
•       •       •

659 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Sep 2017 at 10:20 AM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



7 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-09-29 09:30:28 AM  
And why would "popular medications" leave the market, exactly?  Several medications where very popular and ended up causing heart damage or greatly increased risk of catastrophic illness, were banned for safety reasons.  But what can you do about that?

It's not like a pharma company is going to voluntarily stop selling a popular product unless they're required to and the why is usually safety.
 
2017-09-29 09:54:07 AM  
Yeah, Vioxx was great for pain, but that heart attack thing seemed like a poor trade to me

/I'm funny like that
 
2017-09-29 11:11:13 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Yeah, Vioxx was great for pain, but that heart attack thing seemed like a poor trade to me

/I'm funny like that


I mean it's from a study by a college of business.

As long as those increased deaths are happening in retirement then we want those good working days for the company back.

How dare they steal from the company like that!
 
2017-09-29 05:32:18 PM  
"Considering labor supply effects and not just focusing on clinical outcomes and medical costs has potentially significant implications for regulatory decision-making and the coverage and reimbursement policies of insurance plans and national health care systems," Skira said.

Is he farking kidding us?  The FDA is supposed to keep harmful meds on the market so corporate profits don't suffer?  fark this guy, hard and hot.
 
2017-09-29 05:42:47 PM  
"The finding is from a study that analyzes the labor market effects of Vioxx, a joint pain medication that was introduced in the U.S. in 1999 and in Europe in the early 2000s and then removed from pharmacy shelves in 2004, after studies showed that it may cause an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. "

Not True.

The drug does not cause an increase in those things. It just don't prevent it. That is a side effect of other drugs used to treat joint pain. Vioxx targets a very specific type of inflammation, and does it well, but does not target other types that are associated with heart attacks and strokes. Other drugs are/were more broad spectrum anti-inflammatory.
 
2017-09-29 09:38:45 PM  

mrlewish: "The finding is from a study that analyzes the labor market effects of Vioxx, a joint pain medication that was introduced in the U.S. in 1999 and in Europe in the early 2000s and then removed from pharmacy shelves in 2004, after studies showed that it may cause an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. "

Not True.

The drug does not cause an increase in those things. It just don't prevent it. That is a side effect of other drugs used to treat joint pain. Vioxx targets a very specific type of inflammation, and does it well, but does not target other types that are associated with heart attacks and strokes. Other drugs are/were more broad spectrum anti-inflammatory.


The problem with Vioxx was that it worked well for arthritis and was prescribed to people with cardiac issues in the geriatric population. It was known that it should not be given to heart patients and this was ignored in some cases. Then, when looking at the statics, it looked like it was causing heart failure when this was really comorbidity with arthritis and cardiac issues paired with a small amount of prescribing against warnings.

A class action law suit spawned after the study and the best way to avoid paying out was to have the medication pulled from the market for,"new, dangerous side effects." They would have probably won the case, but it would have been long, expensive, and the medication would have been off the market during the case. There would have been no way to recover the litigation costs from a counter suit as well, so they were kind of backed into a corner.
 
2017-09-30 08:45:09 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Yeah, Vioxx was great for pain, but that heart attack thing seemed like a poor trade to me


The heart disease risk was to people on long-term, high dose use. I know some prior users of Vioxx that it was a life-changing drug for them in occasional, small dose use. They would gladly trade a small risk of heart disease for having a drug that enabled them to function in daily life.
 
Displayed 7 of 7 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report