Posts Tagged ‘Drugs’

Genes to the Rescue: Breakthrough in Autism

Friday, September 26th, 2008

Scientists have a discovered a gene called Npas4 that keeps brain activity in check. Targeting this gene may one day lead to drugs that can help autistic children.

Scientists say they have pinpointed a gene in the brain that can calm nerve cells that become too jumpy, potentially paving the way for new therapies to treat autism and other neurological disorders.

The brain is continually trying to strike a balance between too much and too little nerve cell activity. Neurologists believe that when the balance tips, disorders such as autism and schizophrenia may occur. They are not sure why neurons (nerve cells) go berserk. But Greenberg (Neurobiologist at Harvard Medical School) says he and his colleagues located a gene in mice and rats that helps keep neural activity in check—and may one day be manipulated to prevent or reverse neurological problems.

Autism-Day.jpg

(Photo taken from Volunteer Boston)


Video: Autism Symptoms


Video: IAN Projects Video for Parents “If I could do one more thing”


Reference: Scientific American, Nature

Brand Name Vs Generics

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

This Medco analysis implies that the perceived therapeutic benefit of generics over brand name in the minds of patients may not be that significant as earlier thought.

The analysis also reveals that reaching the Coverage Gap dramatically stimulates the use of generics among all Medicare recipients. During the initial phase of the benefit, when the plan provides drug coverage, one-third of the medications used daily by beneficiaries were generics and two-thirds were brand-name drugs. Once beneficiaries reached the Gap and were responsible for the full cost of the drug, those numbers flip - generic usage rises to 71 percent and brand-name use falls to 29 percent.

Brand Name Lipitor Vs.jpg Generic Simvastatin

What other factors could be playing a role and how do we counteract it?

Reference: Medco, ACP Internist

Publication bias in drug trials

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

Does this come as a surprise!

Over half of all supporting trials for FDA-approved drugs remained unpublished greater than 5 y after approval. Pivotal trials and trials with statistically significant results and larger sample sizes are more likely to be published. Selective reporting of trial results exists for commonly marketed drugs.

Reference: Public Library of Science

Comments from the author:

We found that there was indeed a pattern that favorable studies were more likely to be published than unfavorable trials,” said Ida Sim, associate professor of internal medicine at UCSF and the lead author.

Reference: Bloomberg Science

Further Reading: The Great Beyond, Bad Science, Respectful Insolence, Science Based Medicine

Another blow to Vytorin: Now linked to cancer

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008

In a new article released online (ahead of print) in the New England Journal of Medicine (SEAS Trial), Schering-Plough’s “would be” blockbuster drug ezitimibe (Zetia) has again not only fallen short of it’s expectations, but now may also be linked with increased cancer risk.

In patients taking Vytorin (simvastatin + ezitimibe) there was an increased number of cancers (no particular type) when it was given to try to prevent aortic stenosis (thickening of a valve located in the blood outflow tract in the heart).

Aortic stenosis in elderly is related to atherosclerosis and has many of the same risk factors as for heart attacks. This trial was therefore designed to see if Vytorin could prevent/delay development of aortic stenosis. Unfortunately, Vytorin fell short in this criterion also.

Of note, another article published online, analyzed data from 2 more trials (which are ongoing - SHARP , IMPROVE-IT) in addition to the SEAS trial and concluded that there may not be any relationship of Vytorin with cancer. However, both the other studies are sponsored by Schering-Plough!!!!!

But these articles most likely will drive the nail in the coffin for Vytorin.

Reference: NEJM

Drug testing at the Summer Olympics

Sunday, August 24th, 2008

Smart move this time to keep the blood of athletes for 8 years and test them for “upcoming drugs” with abuse potential later on.

With the Summer Olympics taking place in Beijing, its interesting to review the history of drug testing at the Olympics. As the testing laboratories have introduced newer test methods, the athletes doping find more exotic dopands or new ways to avoid being caught with existing drugs.

This “arms race” is perhaps best demonstrated by the Moscow Olympics of 1980: During the Moscow games none of the 1,645 tests performed (in urine) came back positive for doping at the time. However after testosterone analysis was introduced — the so called T/E ratio — many samples from the Moscow games were reanalyzed and appeared suspicious. Several left over samples from the game had T/E ratios exceeding the IOC limit, 7.14% of womens’ 2.12% of mens’. By the next olympiad, Los Angeles 1984, T/E ratios were being measured as well as a few other metabolites.

In the early 1990s the protein hormone EPO entered the scene as a dopand. However practical detection of EPO was not implemented until the Sydney olympics in 2000.

Drug testing at the Summer Olympics

Reference: Journal of Mass Spectrometry