Neurotin FDA's biggest disaster

Options

Neurontin Attorneys The drug Neurontin was FDA approved only as a supplementary treatment for partial seizures when no other treatment options were working. Pfizer is now the target of lawsuits due to the improper promotion and off label prescriptions of Neurontin. The FDA sent multiple letters to Pfizer because the agency found the drug Neurontin to be improperly represented.In May 2002, the Public Citizen consumer group posted an article on the drug Neurontin titled, "The Illegal Corporate Creation of a Blockbuster Drug". The article exposed evidence of Pfizer's illegal promotion of unapproved uses for the drug Neurontin. The company was able to use a loophole in FDA policy to come up with more ways to use the drug Neurontin, greatly expanding a previously small corner of the market in order to turn the drug Neurontin into a blockbuster.Estimates as high as 90% of the drug Neurontin's sales are from off-label uses that have fueled it to become an over $1.3 billion per year force. Critics of the FDA point to the drug Neurontin as an example of the seemingly little degree of caution that the agency is able to enforce. The FDA had sent Pfizer warning letters because the agency believed the drug Neurontin was being improperly represented.Civil suits are currently against Pfizer for the drug Neurontin. Consumers and consumer groups are unhappy with large drug companies that over push their products, such as the drug Neurontin. If you or someone you love has been injured by or prescribed Neurontin for an off-label use please contact our service today. We can help put you in touch with experienced Neurontin attorneys who can help you with your case

«1

Comments

  • FloridaLady
    FloridaLady Member Posts: 2,155
    edited March 2009

    My oncologist told me about this today when we were discussing the FDA. His words "it is totally corrupt".  I worked at the National Cancer Institute and said what he saw there between the originations what horrible to see. I read today 60% of the FDA is now funding by drug companies.

    This drug was said to help neuropathy and there was zero proof!  How this got out was a Harvard intern doing a study at the FDA ran across this info and sent a whisper blower email up the change of command until some one did something.

    Now many times has this happened? 

    Flalady

  • FloridaLady
    FloridaLady Member Posts: 2,155
    edited March 2009

    Neurontin Suicides: FDA Still Turning A Deaf Ear Charges Rep Hinchey

    Categories Pharma

    Maurice Hinchey, Representative of the 22nd Congressional District of New York is calling for a thorough examination of the link between Neurontin, an anti-epilepsy drug that has been made a block-buster seller by off-label marketing, and suicides. The lawmaker blasted the FDA's failure to act in this matter in a letter to FDA acting Commissioner Lester Crawford dated 7 September 2004.

    According to a report by the Alliance for Human Research Protection, Andrew Finkelstein, of the New York Law firm Finkelstein & Partners "knew of 160 Americans who, having never attempted any form of suicide before taking Neurontin, committed suicide while on the drug, as well as over two thousand (2,000) Americans who, having never attempted suicide before taking Neurontin, were hospitalized following a suicide attempt while on the drug."

    One would think that 160 deaths and two thousand attempted suicides should lead to immediate action on the part of the FDA. Not so, as a matter of fact Teva Pharmaceuticals received FDA approval for its launch of a generic versions of the Neurontin, also known as gabapentin.

    The drug, which apparently nets Pfizer 1.7 billion $ a year, was originally approved only for epilepsy, but was illegally promoted by Warner Lambert's Parke Davis for other, non-approved uses. According to an article in the San Francisco Gate:

    Prosecutors in the case said Warner-Lambert turned Neurontin into a blockbuster drug with tactics like paying doctors to listen to pitches for unapproved uses and treating them to luxury trips to Hawaii, Florida or the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. One doctor received almost $308,000 to tout Neurontin at conferences. "This illegal and fraudulent promotion scheme corrupted the information process relied on by doctors in their medical decision making, thereby putting patients at risk,'' said U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan, chief prosecutor for the federal district based in Boston.

    While Pfizer had to pay more than 400 million $ to settle the suit over its illegal promotion of the drug, it would appear that the suicide allegations clearly warrant serious investigation, but for now, the FDA is going in the opposite direction - the agency has been intervening in liability lawsuits in defense of drug companies and medical device manufacturers sued by individuals who have been harmed.

    Neurontin safety

    It may be instructive to look at Pfizer's product warnings on Neurontin:

    WARNINGS
    Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events-Pediatric Patients 3-12 years of age

    Gabapentin use in pediatric patients with epilepsy 3-12 years of age is associated with the occurrence of central nervous system related adverse events. The most significant of these can be classified into the following categories:

    1) emotional lability (primarily behavioral problems),
    2) hostility, including aggressive behaviors,
    3) thought disorder, including concentration problems and change in school performance, and
    4) hyperkinesia (primarily restlessness and hyperactivity).

    Among the gabapentin-treated patients, most of the events were mild to moderate
    in intensity. In controlled trials in pediatric patients 3-12 years of age the incidence of these adverse events was: emotional lability 6% (gabapentin-treated patients) vs 1.3% (placebo-treated patients); hostility 5.2% vs 1.3%; hyperkinesia 4.7% vs 2.9%; and thought disorder 1.7% vs 0%. One of these events, a report of hostility, was considered serious. Discontinuation of gabapentin treatment occurred in 1.3% of patients reporting emotional lability and hyperkinesia and 0.9% of gabapentin-treated patients reporting hostility and thought disorder. One placebo-treated patient (0.4%) withdrew due to emotional lability.

    Withdrawal Precipitated Seizure, Status Epilepticus

    Antiepileptic drugs should not be abruptly discontinued because of the possibility of increasing seizure frequency.

    In the placebo-controlled studies in patients >12 years of age, the incidence of status epilepticus in patients receiving Neurontin® was 0.6% (3 of 543) versus 0.5% in patients receiving placebo (2 of 378). Among the 2074 patients >12 years of age treated with Neurontin® across all studies (controlled and uncontrolled) 31 (1.5%) had status epilepticus. Of these, 14 patients had no prior history of status epilepticus either before treatment or while on other medications. Because adequate historical data are not available, it is impossible to say whether or not treatment with Neurontin® is associated with a higher or lower rate of status epilepticus than would be expected
    to occur in a similar population not treated with Neurontin®.

    Tumorigenic Potential

    In standard preclinical in vivo lifetime carcinogenicity studies, an unexpectedly high incidence of pancreatic acinar adenocarcinomas was identified in male, but not female, rats. (See PRECAUTIONS: Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility.) The clinical significance of this finding is unknown. Clinical experience during gabapentin's premarketing development provides no direct means to assess its potential for inducing tumors in humans.

    In clinical studies in adjunctive therapy in epilepsy comprising 2085 patient-years of exposure in patients >12 years of age, new tumors were reported in 10 patients (2 breast, 3 brain, 2 lung, 1 adrenal, 1 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 1 endometrial carcinoma in situ), and preexisting tumors worsened in 11 patients (9 brain, 1 breast, 1 prostate) during or up to 2 years following discontinuation of Neurontin®. Without knowledge of the background incidence and recurrence in a similar population not treated with Neurontin®, it is impossible to know whether the incidence seen in this cohort is or is not affected by treatment.

    Sudden and Unexplained Death in Patients With Epilepsy

    During the course of premarketing development of Neurontin® 8 sudden and unexplained deaths were recorded among a cohort of 2203 patients treated (2103 patient-years of exposure). Some of these could represent seizure-related deaths in which the seizure was not observed, e.g., at night. This represents an incidence of 0.0038 deaths per patient-year. Although this rate exceeds that expected in a healthy population matched for age and sex, it is within the range of estimates for the incidence of sudden unexplained deaths in patients with epilepsy not receiving Neurontin® (ranging from 0.0005 for the general population of epileptics to 0.003 for a clinical trial population similar to that in the Neurontin® program, to 0.005 for patients with refractory epilepsy). Consequently, whether these figures are reassuring or raise further concern depends on comparability of the populations reported upon to the Neurontin®

  • FloridaLady
    FloridaLady Member Posts: 2,155
    edited March 2009

    The Food and Drug Administration has asked the makers of all epilepsy drugs to re-examine their clinical trial data in response to claims that one of the medicines, Pfizer's Neurontin, boosts the risk of suicide.

    Word of the FDA action came in response to a petition filed last May by personal injury attorney Andrew Finkelstein, who has been urging the agency to warn doctors that the commonly prescribed drug Neurontin can lead to severe depression and suicide.

    Neurontin, with $2.7 billion in sales last year, has been prescribed to more than 10 million people since it was put on the market in 1994. Although it was formally approved for patients suffering from epilepsy and later for pain related to a skin disorder, it has since been prescribed for illnesses ranging from psychiatric disorders to back pain.

    Finkelstein bases his claims on the FDA's own records as well as 318 suicides and about 2,000 suicide attempts among families he represents.

    The FDA's inquiry comes as it tries to repair its image as the guardian of drug safety after a series of controversies over its response to warnings about serious side effects linked to several other blockbuster medicines.

    The probe of epilepsy drugs is similar to the FDA's examination last year of a class of widely prescribed antidepressants, including Paxil. That inquiry eventually resulted in strong warnings that antidepressants could increase suicide risks. But the case damaged the FDA's credibility when families and their lawyers accused the agency of suppressing a report by one of its own experts.

    The agency came under fire again for its handling of drug safety concerns when Merck & Co. suddenly withdrew its widely sold painkiller Vioxx in September due to cardiovascular risks that experts had been urging the FDA to act on for years.

    The FDA, in a letter Finkelstein shared with The Chronicle, said it is now requesting that Pfizer and 13 other manufacturers reanalyze the results of their controlled clinical trials for signs of suicidal thoughts and actions. According to the National Society for Epilepsy, there are at least 23 prescription drugs that are approved for the treatment of epilepsy. But an FDA spokeswoman said she could not supply the names of the other drugs subject to the inquiry.

    Pfizer received the letter last month and said it will comply with the FDA request but denied that Neurontin increases the risk of suicide.

    "Pfizer maintains an extensive program for tracking and reporting medical events associated with the use of Neurontin, as we do for all our medicines,'' said company spokesman Bryant Haskins. "The comprehensive data -- including clinical trial results -- that we've submitted to the FDA over the past decade refute any suggestion that Neurontin causes depression, suicidal thoughts or suicidal behavior.''

    Finkelstein sees the FDA's response to his petition as part of a pattern of agency delays when serious potential drug risks arise. The attorney wants the FDA to include a prominent suicide warning on Neurontin's label. He also thinks it should ask an independent expert to analyze the drugmakers' data and demand disclosure of any trials the manufacturers haven't published.

    In addition, he wants the agency to alert doctors that it is now investigating the possible suicide risk, to encourage heightened monitoring of Neurontin patients.

    "I think they're taking modest steps when they're confronted with what could be a very significant issue,'' Finkelstein said.

    A top FDA official said the agency had been looking into possible suicide links with "mood stabilizers'' like Neurontin for some time before Finkelstein's petition was filed, based on lessons the agency learned from the antidepressants case.

    "We'd like to get an answer to the question: Can it make your mood worse?'' said Dr. Robert Temple, associate director for medical policy at the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

    But Temple said the FDA will not issue advisories to doctors during the six months that the manufacturers have to review their data, unless the agency finds significant signs of a suicide danger. "So far, we have not,'' he said.

    Neurontin has already been the focus of one of the recent drug company scrapes that have trained a harsh light on the industry. Neurontin is FDA- approved only for epilepsy and pain associated with a skin disorder, but it is widely prescribed for back pain, psychiatric illnesses and other conditions --

    that is, so-called off-label uses not approved (but not forbidden) by the

    FDA.

    That huge off-label market resulted from illegal promotional tactics such as treating doctors to luxury trips, government prosecutors charged last year. They won a $430 million settlement and guilty pleas from the drug's former manufacturer, now a unit of Pfizer, which is the world's largest drug firm.

    In spite of that, as well as findings by expert pharmacologists that Neurontin has little value in most off-label uses, the drug's revenues rose in 2004. So the FDA's finding on Finkelstein's safety claims could affect millions of Americans.

    Finkelstein is the managing partner of a multibranch law firm based in Newburgh, a small city beside the Hudson River north of New York City. He filed his petition to the FDA after he found that 25 people taking Neurontin had committed suicide between 1998 and mid-2003, according to MedWatch, an FDA program that receives voluntary alerts from doctors and others. This "passive surveillance'' system is estimated to capture about a tenth of actual side- effect cases.

    Finkelstein said his law firm then did what he thinks the FDA should be doing: It actively searched for other cases. When the firm placed ads asking if patients displayed suicidal behavior on Neurontin, it received thousands of calls. Finkelstein said he weeded out people who had ever attempted suicide before taking the drug.

    Among the more than 2,300 families he represents are the Richardsons of San Jose. Lori Richardson's husband, Timothy, committed suicide in 2003 at the age of 34, leaving behind a young son and daughter. Richardson said her husband's personality changed after he started taking Neurontin in 2000 for pain from spinal fusion surgery that repaired a work injury. The tall commercial plumbing division manager -- introverted and a meticulous planner -- became agitated, aggressive and impulsive, she said.

    "He knew it,'' Richardson said. "He would tell the doctors, 'I'm not like I always have been.' ''

    Doctors prescribed antidepressants. Timothy Richardson also received the narcotic-based painkiller Vicodin and developed an addiction, his wife said. Financial pressures and caring for the couple's two children were other stresses, she acknowledges. But she suspects Neurontin was a crucial factor in his intentional overdose.

    Finkelstein said all the suicide cases he found involved people taking Neurontin for off-label uses, with about 50 percent given it for pain-related problems like migraines or back aches. He said the FDA has not done enough to curb off-label prescribing of Neurontin, particularly for psychiatric illnesses like bipolar disorder, where depression is already a factor. The lack of a suicide warning on the drug's label is an indictment of the drug regulatory system, he said.

    "It's structured to benefit sales to pharmaceutical companies rather than to provide necessary information to prescribing physicians and their patients, '' said Finkelstein.

    Pfizer says Finkelstein's petition is a ploy to bolster his clients' lawsuits against the company. Haskins, the company spokesman, said the data don't support Finkelstein's demand for a prominent "black box'' warning on Neurontin's label -- the FDA's most stringent enforcement action short of banning a drug.

    "It's simply irresponsible to promote the false impression that a causal link exists between the use of Neurontin and suicide,'' said Haskins.

    Although suicide is not listed in the warnings section of Neurontin's FDA label, other parts of the 29-page document note that symptoms like depression, anxiety, psychosis, and a category dubbed "suicidal'' have cropped up among adults and adolescents in various clinical trials, and may be related to Neurontin.

    The "suicidal'' symptom was listed as infrequent, occurring in 1 out of 100 to 1 out of 1,000 patients. At that rate, for every million patients on the drug, 1,000 to 10,000 people might experience the side effect. However, some of the studies were not placebo-controlled, so any causal effect of the drug would be hard to quantify.

    Finkelstein wants the label information updated to include completed suicides. He sees further proof that Neurontin boosts suicide risks in an FDA document turned over to him in litigation against Pfizer.

    In 1992, an FDA official who reviewed the marketing application submitted for Neurontin by Parke-Davis, its original manufacturer, noted that a small fraction of clinical trial participants with epilepsy became seriously depressed while on the drug, and two attempted suicide.

    "Depression, while it may be not an infrequent occurrence in the epileptic population, may become worse and require intervention or lead to suicide, as it has resulted in some suicidal attempts,'' wrote the FDA reviewer, Dr. Cynthia McCormick. That might limit the drug's usefulness, she concluded.

    But McCormick, now a private consultant, said she had deferred to the judgment of much more experienced FDA reviewers who also evaluated Neurontin in 1992. The data did not prove that the drug was responsible for the suicide attempts, she now says.

    "This is not an unexpected event in the population it was approved for,'' said McCormick, who did a brief consulting assignment for Pfizer about a year ago.

    Finkelstein said he had offered the FDA information from his clients' case reports early last year and was flabbergasted when he was told to hire a pharmacology expert to provide the FDA with a risk analysis. That's the FDA's job, Finkelstein said, not a lawyer's.

    The FDA official who responded to Finkelstein's petition in an April 12 letter said he had asked the attorney to hire an expert because the agency would have had difficulty evaluating whether Neurontin played a role in the suicides.

    Other factors, like the various different medications taken by the patients, and the fact that many suffered from psychiatric illnesses that carry inherent suicide risks, would complicate the analysis, wrote Dr. Russell Katz, director of the FDA's Division of Neuropharmacological Drug Products.

    Assessing drugs for suicide risks is not easy even in controlled clinical trials, Temple said. Suicides are rare enough that even a large trial might not show a significant difference between those on the drug and on a placebo.

    Many of the trials the manufacturers will be reviewing were not designed to assess suicide risk, Temple said. But the FDA might find hints of a risk. In a trial of one epilepsy drug, he said, 1.1 percent of participants committed suicide versus 0.4 percent on placebo. If those hints add up, the FDA might take action, Temple said.

    If Neurontin appears to boost suicide risks, the agency might advise doctors to restrict its off-label use, Temple said. But he said it's too early to predict the outcome of the epilepsy drug probe.

  • FloridaLady
    FloridaLady Member Posts: 2,155
    edited March 2009

    Neurontin

    What is Neurontin?

    Neurontin (gabapentin) is a prescription drug used in the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) and partial seizures in adults and children. The drug, manufactured by Pfizer, first received FDA approval in 1993 as an "adjunctive therapy" for patients suffering from epilepsy. Since that time, the FDA has also approved Neurontin for use in patients who afflicted with PHN.

    Unfortunately , Pfizer illegally and fraudulently marketed the drug for use outside of these conditions (generally referred to as off-label usage) - a move that unnecessarily put many Neurontin users at risk for serious adverse side effects.

    Pfizer Defies FDA Regulations

    The FDA regulatory system is designed to protect the public from potentially harmful drugs. When the FDA approves a drug, it clearly defines the purposes for which the drug can be used based on extensive studies and testing. Pfizer intentionally encouraged off-label usage of Neurontin through direct and indirect marketing and promotional campaigns even though it knew that the drug was not effective and in many cases harmful for unapproved usage. The off-label uses Pfizer misleadingly endorsed include :

    • Bipolar disorder
    • Various pain disorders
    • Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)
    • Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
    • Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS)
    • Migraine
    • Drug and alcohol withdrawal seizures

    The FDA never approved Neurontin for use in any of these conditions. Studies have not established the efficacy or safety of Neurontin for any of these off-label uses . In fact, a 1998 study sponsored by Parke-Davis (now owned by Pfizer) at the Harvard Bipolar Research Program found that patients taking Neurontin did worse than those taking sugar pills. They waited two years to publish the findings and still continued to promote Neurontin for off-label usage.

    Neurontin Litigation: Past & Present

    In 2002, a whistleblower complaint initiated a suit against Pfizer (then Warner-Lambert), exposing the company's deceptive promotional scheme. Two years later, the manufacturer agreed to pay $430 million to settle criminal charges and civil liabilities associated with the illegal Neurontin campaign .

    Pfizer is currently engaged in multi-district litigation (MDL) and Neurontin lawsuits in state court . The MDL primarily involves cases of consumers who purchased Neurontin for off-label uses that Pfizer knew showed no efficacy. The majority of personal injury cases stemming from off-label Neurontin use have been filed in state courts. The first Neurontin personal injury trial is expected to take place in late 2006 or early 2007.

    If you or someone you love has suffered injury as a result of off-label Neurontin use, you may wish to seek the counsel of a qualified attorney who can help you understand your legal rights

  • cp418
    cp418 Member Posts: 7,079
    edited March 2009

    There are times when I am so disgusted with the drug companies and the FDA I don't know whether to hate them or to be thankful for some of these posions.  I'm currently taking Femara and recently now Zometa.  Other than those medications I'll stick to my daily supplements and attempts at healthy organic diet with exercise.  When I get numb feet and neuropathy I'll jump up and down.

  • sweetlady2
    sweetlady2 Member Posts: 23
    edited March 2009

    I am a psychiatrist and I rarely use Neurontin. (I can't say never because there are some legitimate uses for this medication.)

    I remember several years ago when patients with bipolar disorder would get admitted to the hospital, the inpatient docs would put them on Neurontin. I did not think that it was effective, so I was not happy with this. I had to call their docs and the admitting department and let them know to please not put MY patients with bipolar disorder on this drug because I would just have to take them off it once them were discharged. That would waste everybody's time.

    The drug reps were apparently encouraging docs to use Neurontin for diagnoses where there was no proof.

    I don't like drug reps. I won't eat their food or take their pens. I do allow them into my office because you have to keep an eye on them to know what they are saying to the primary care docs. I got the drug reps in trouble for some ways that they were trying to funnel money to doctors. Once I did the sting, it went all the way up to the AMA and the drug companies had to stop some of the ways they gave money to doctors.

    I prescribe medications. Medications can be good. They can save lives. The drug companies just need to be limited. I hope the Obama appoints Steve Sharfstein as FDA commissioner. He is a really good guy and will not be afraid to stand up to the drug companies. He has been a great health commissioner in Baltimore. 

  • FloridaLady
    FloridaLady Member Posts: 2,155
    edited March 2009

    sweetlady2,

    I'm so happy you stood up for what you believed in.  I just wish we had more doctor's who would do the same.

    Flalady

  • sweetlady2
    sweetlady2 Member Posts: 23
    edited March 2009

    Oops! I meant Joshua Sharfstein for FDA commissioner.

    Steve Sharfstein is Josh's father. Steve is also a good patient advocate and a former president of the American Psychiatric Association.

    Joshua Sharfstein is a pediatrician by training. Joshua has been a strong advocate since his medical school days when he published an article showing the the AMA was investing some of its money in corporations that owned tobacco companies. It embarrassed the AMA enough that they divested themselves of the tobacco stock.

  • SoCalLisa
    SoCalLisa Member Posts: 13,961
    edited March 2009

    I took neurontin for neuropathy before lyrica came out...it was not nearly as good as lyrica but it took the edge off of the neuropathy..it also stopped my hot flashes...so I was glad to take it " off label"...and I am happier with Lyrica...

    Isn't it nice we are all different and have different points of view...

    SoCal

  • Deirdre1
    Deirdre1 Member Posts: 1,461
    edited March 2009

    Ohhh I also took it for chronic pain after a car accident.. and they were right it was a "chronic pain" in my but!!!  It didn't help the pain at all and the doc's tend to up the dose very high.  I remember having difficulty forming word like "the" and "and" simple word.. that stuff is horrible at least for me it was!!  But yes SoCal it is really nice to hear different points of view!!!  Best

  • 07rescue
    07rescue Member Posts: 168
    edited March 2009

    I watched a young male patient die from status epilepticus that resulted when nausea and vomiting from a bad flu prevented him from taking his high dose of Neurontin dose on time. He was a chronic pain patient who was taking it for pain management. Despite that I brought in his medication bottle to the Emergency department physicians and reported his wife's description of him vomiting his medication, the report was dismissed as irrelevant, while the dangers to staff, such as infectious meningitis, were given priority and investigated while his seizure continued, unabated, despite standard treatment given. He died.

    Never stop taking Neurontin abruptly, it must be titrated down gradually, and if nausea and vomiting prevents you from taking your dose, please, please report the problem to your doctor.

    Neurontin can help with neuropathic pain, but can also be a very dangerous drug. 

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited March 2009

    Pfizer is the one who is to blame for advertising off-label uses. And the docs who do it.

    I don't see how it is FDA's fault. They sent the warning letters, which is how the law dictates that they proceed in cases like this. Their is a protocol for dealing with labeling violations.

    Still, there are numerous cases of off-label use of drugs that are fine. It's a topic that has pros and cons.

  • rayhope
    rayhope Member Posts: 228
    edited March 2009
    Rescue:  I take a low dose of neurontin (300 mg) to help with hot flashes.  It doesn't really help that much, and I think it has contributed to my weight gain.  Is it necessary to taper off such a low dose? If so, how?  It is a capsule so can't be split.
  • Sierra
    Sierra Member Posts: 1,638
    edited March 2009

    By Golly, thanks for this post

    I took Neurontin for neuropathy

    had a bad allergic reaction

    they sent me to emerg

    at the time

    Hugs, Sierra

    I did not like taking it at all

    that was me personally...

  • 07rescue
    07rescue Member Posts: 168
    edited March 2009

    Hi Rayhope

    Please let your doctor guide you on your Neurontin dose. I dare not make a guess about your case online, that would be totally irresponsible and illegal. So much has to do with the length of time you take a medication as well as the dose. Your doctor is your best guide.

    From my personal experience Neurontin did not help my hotflashes, either. At a higher dose it did help a bit with pain, but was like a sledgehammer to my cognition - I couldn't think or remember anything, and that was an unacceptable price to pay. I titrated off it with no problems.

  • badboob67
    badboob67 Member Posts: 2,780
    edited March 2009

    Rayhope,

    I was on the same dose (and did gain weight quite rapidly!) as you. I did taper off. I'm sorry that it's been a while and I can't recall exactly but I think it was a little over 2 weeks before I was off it completely.

    (((HUGS)))
    Diane

  • Sassa
    Sassa Member Posts: 1,588
    edited March 2009

    Stop blaming the FDA for what it can and can not do.  The agency has been systematically gutted since the early 70"s (when the Civil Service Exam was abolished because expecting government employees to demonstrate a certain level of education was considered discriminatory). 

    Good old Ronald Regan refused to sign into law several regulations that would have put teeth into regulating clinical trials.  There have been funding and personnel cutbacks under every republican president.

    Oh - and that funding by drug companies of agency review? Another example of cutting funding to the agency (tie that in with the abolishment of the Civil Service System and the establish of FERS in the mid 80's and the stage was set for employees who cozied up to regulated industry in hopes of a high paying industry job).

    If you don't like what FDA is today, remember the American public has the agency that they deserve because of political choices in the past.

    Believe, there are many FDA employees who want to protect the public health; we just haven't been allowed or able to for the last 18 years.

    Sign me:

    A 35 year veteran of the FDA who retired from a different FDA than the the one she started with in 1972 

    PS - the biggest FDA disaster was FIAU

  • FloridaLady
    FloridaLady Member Posts: 2,155
    edited March 2009

    FDA is a business that should be ran like a business.  I would love to see the government out of this business thank you very much.  Because employee's don't get what they want so it''s ok to cozy up with pharm industries. I will not go into the politics of this but just to say the less government the better. We zero proof that a goverment agency can run anything without being a complete drain on the America public.  American DESERVE WHAT THEY PAY FOR PERIOD!

    Flalady

  • Deirdre1
    Deirdre1 Member Posts: 1,461
    edited March 2009

    OK so you are a veteran of the FDA and YOU are agreeing that there just isn't enough money or energy (personel) to do the job..  That's exactly what Flalady is saying (different words but the same meaning) - if it (FDA) can't do the job it was set up for (regardless of the why) that IS the reason to blame it (not the people that work for it but the system itself!) .. Now all it is is a false safety net that people refer to as helpful AND TRUST when even it's employees say it can't do the job.  I'm cetainly not blaming anyone for not doing their job if the money is not there, but if the money is not there perhaps we need to abolish the agency?  If it can no longer do the job it was meant to do then perhaps you are correct and we have "voted" it out of existence.. But if we have voted not to supplement it with the cash it needs then it is no longer a valuable entitey and THAT is exactly when something is susceptible to fraud... Perhaps it once was a great agency - I know I use to believe that, but it's a tired old girl now who needs retirement and we need a better system IMO.  .

  • orange1
    orange1 Member Posts: 930
    edited March 2009

    If there were no FDA, who would review the drugs?  Anyone could sell anything a say it cured cancer.  The company with the best advertising would get all the business.  FDA writes the regulations that require drug companies to test drugs before they can be sold.  Without FDA, we would have even less information and fewer controls on the drugs we take.  I can't see how that would be a good thing.

    Also, without the FDA there would be no inspections of pharmaceutical companies.  We could end up with a system like they have in China, where companies could get away with putting toxic additives into food and drugs.

    Our system is certainly is not perfect, but is a lot better than it  would be without the FDA.

  • Deirdre1
    Deirdre1 Member Posts: 1,461
    edited March 2009

    No you see that's were we all get confussed in this country.. if the FDA doesn't do it's job, you eliminate them and start a new organization who would have the backing of the country and get the money for that organizations life span.. and on and on.. AND occassionally when an organization is new and shiny it does it's job!!!

    If a company in this country doesn't do it's job it fails (or at least it use to -- that was the way we knew that their supply didn't meet our demand).. this organization has failed..do we just prop it up or do we close it's doors and start again?  Do we continue to throw money (albeit less so than before) at it without the outcome we need?  There is a logic that seems to be lost just because it is an agency of the Federal Government.  (boy are we in trouble now that they also control the banks!)

  • orange1
    orange1 Member Posts: 930
    edited March 2009

    I am not sure why a new organization with a different name would be any better than the old organization,

    If the difference is giving them enough money, why don't we give the FDA the money it needs to perform its job.  Also, congress has got to step in to legislate appropriately.  The FDA can only enforce laws as they are written, they cannot write the laws themselves.  A new organization would not be allowed to write laws either. 

    Seriously, I don't think it matters if the name is changed or not.  I would be happy either way, as long as the organization got enough funding and proper legislation to allow the organization to do its job. 

  • Deirdre1
    Deirdre1 Member Posts: 1,461
    edited March 2009

    Because that's how business works..  when we don't get what we want and need from one company who has promised to do or sell a particular service or item well then the business goes under and another is created.. it's not about a name change it's about giving what was promised for the dollars spent..  And the premise for laws have already been written it's a matter of enforcing them and frankly using them.. This is CERTAINLY not about a name change, it about giving the people what they are paying for in taxes and since the FDA has grown beyond our ability to pay for services AND the people are not happy with the job it is doing - it's time for a newer more streamlined agency.

  • orange1
    orange1 Member Posts: 930
    edited March 2009

    Deidre- I'm not arguing, just curious... What would you like to see done differenctly?  Easier  or harder new drug approvals (higher safety assurnace, fewer availabe drugs, or lower safety assurance, more available drugs?  Fewer or increased inspections?  Fewer or more regulations?  Which regulations or aspects would you like different with the new agency?

  • rosesinwinter
    rosesinwinter Member Posts: 70
    edited March 2009

    It is so interesting to read all of the responses to this!  Y'all are such smart women; it's great to get to know you all!!

    I ended up on Neurontin after complaining of neuropathy in my feet and hands after Abraxane. Started on only 100 mg three times per day but they kept increasing as the pain persisted. By the time I was going to Disney World in early December, I was up to 400 mg 3x/day with a little bit of relief and my oncology team telling me that I had a long way to go until I reached the maximum dose of 3200 mg/day. I gained 6# on the higher dose, had severe constipation and had crying spells out of the blue while in Florida. Worst of all, I was arguing with my family about minor issues  (I think I would call it emotional lability). After researching all of my meds, I brought it up with my oncologist who suggested that it might be the Ambien that I take occasionally - one of the nurses thought it might be the Tamoxifen.  I followed my own instincts and weaned off the Neurontin which was not helping all that much anyways. Now, no constipation, lost 3# and no more crying spells. But if I had not been assertive, nothing would have changed. How does the oncology team know how to sort out the side-effects of the many medications and/or the emotional effects of having breast cancer with a stressful job and 2 teenagers?  They really can't sort it out in many cases and so they listen to the pharmaceutical reps.  My biggest question - how can a medication that is designed to alter brain chemistry to stop seizures be presumed to not have nervous system side-effects when given to treat peripheral neuropathy?  Do they think that it only affects the peripheral nerves when they prescribe it for that?? In retrospect, I find it amazing that it can be used off-label so freely when there are no clinical studies demonstrating efficacy for this use!

  • 07rescue
    07rescue Member Posts: 168
    edited March 2009

    My first change would be to eliminate the drug company sponsorship of the review process. While the idea that drug companies should pay for their experimental products to be reviewed seems appropriate at first glance, "he who pays the piper calls the tune" is too great a danger, and the FDA, or a substitute agency, should be funded adequately to review new submissions in a timely manner.

    Flexibility in compassionate use for experimental products for the terminally ill and those at imminent risk of irreversible negative disease outcomes is my preference, so that those for whom a high degree of safety risk is offset by the certain risk of adverse disease progress can access the products, while the public is not put at risk, or have any false sense of safety engendered for the unapproved product. 

    I would favor far more inspections, and rigorous standards for safety, elimination of employees who have any conflict of interest from participating in the approval process, strict regulation of conflict of interest at all points in employee hiring and service, a requirement that pharmaceutical companies demonstrate benefit over and beyond the established standard of care for new products, and new drug pricing that is commensurate with that degree of benefit - profit for better patient outcome - not "what the market will bear". New products might even pay for themselves by offering better health outcomes, and therefore reduced later health care costs. New products should be revenue neutral as much as possible, so they are more cost efficient. 

    "Me too" drugs - that only drive health care costs way up while offering no added benefit, nor better safety profile, and do not increase benefit even to select subgroups of patients - should not be approved. We cannot afford an endless stream of quasi "new" drugs that only exist to extend patent protection for older drugs that go off patent, while they offer no better, or even worse performance for patients. Tweaking a molecule here and there to get a new patent and jack the price up with an expensive new marketing campaign is not health care progress. 

    New products, medical devices, and procedures that offer no greater benefit to patients, that no one but the very rich can afford, are only adding health risk and inflating health care costs, while basic primary and preventive care that could offer far greater benefit to a tremendous number of patients suffers from lack of adequate reimbursement, leading to shortages of supply in many areas of the country.

    I found it compelling that even the timid American Cancer Society found it necessary this year to redirect their public awareness and advocacy campaign to call attention to the rising health care costs that are claiming the lives of cancer patients who cannot afford treatment, or must delay treatment due to high cost, as the greatest danger to patient health, rather than their normal marketing to promote new research and development of new cancer treatments. The costs of care now outrank the race for a cure in their importance to patients.

    Considering how entrenched agencies become in Washington there is some merit to the idea that an entirely new agency should be created, but that idea would face extreme political opposition in Washington. 

    That's just off the top of my head. If I had more time I could probably find more improvements.

  • orange1
    orange1 Member Posts: 930
    edited March 2009

    Companies are not supposed to promote drugs for off-label uses.  I think this is a good rule.  Many pharma companies get into trouble over this.

    However, I am glad that doctors are allowed to prescibe off label.  Some drugs work well for conditions that they are not approved for.  For example, viagra is very helpful for what used to be a fatal condition called pulmonary hypertension.  It was recently approved for that use, but for several years was prescribed off label and saved lives.

  • 07rescue
    07rescue Member Posts: 168
    edited March 2009

    I agree that doctors should be allowed to judiciously prescribe off-label, and also believe that Pharma should not be allowed to advertise or otherwise promote drugs to patients across the board, not just for off label purposes. I would extend that prohibition to the Big Pharma sponsorship of nonprofit patient advocacy organizations that exist mainly as promotional tools of the drug companies to market their drugs to patients cloaked by the perception of objectivity that a nonprofit agency provides. Patients should not be misled by the nonprofit banner into believing what amounts to advertising for pharmaceutical treatment of their illnesses.

    I think there should be more investigation into the relationships between Big Pharma and the patient advocacy groups they sponsor with their huge donations, and those relationships need to proceed with absolutely no strings attached, or they should be exposed and ended.

    Just as industry supported pseudo grassroots "astroturf" organizations are used to lobby for industry advantage in the political sphere, phony patient advocacy groups who's main purpose is direct to the public drug company advertising should be exposed for what they are. People deserve to know who they are speaking with.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited March 2009

    "Pharma should not be allowed to advertise or otherwise promote drugs to patients across the board ..."

    That will never fly here (USA). It is anti-business, anti-free-speech, and keeps people from learning about products that can help them. It makes us even more dependent on the almighty doctor. No business of any sort would support it (there but for the grace of big brother goes I), few medical groups would support it, and only people who believe that drug companies are out to harm them would support it. That is not most people.

  • StaceyR
    StaceyR Member Posts: 136
    edited March 2009

    We have different drug advertising laws in Canada, the result of which I actually find pretty amusing.  Drug companies are allowed to advertise their drug, but they are not allowed to say in the same advertisement what the drug is to be used for.  Alternatively, they are also permitted to do a commercial discussing a particular condition and encourage viewers to "ask your doctor about new treatments which might help you".

    So what we see here are commercials for, say, Viagra that show happy couples dancing or singing in the streets, with just the word "Viagra" that shows up at the end of the ad (with no mention of erectile dysfunction), and it's up to the viewer to determine what condition the drug treats.  Of course, Viagra is an obvious one, but sometimes the commercials are downright mystifying.

    Clearly this makes the drug-seeking behaviour of the general population a whole lot different, since drug companies are severely limited in how much direct advertising they can do.  I don't know if this is a better situation or not.

Categories