Posted by eeyorena on January 22, 2005, at 21:36:51
In reply to Re: Anyone had success on Effexor XR? » dancingstar, posted by not2late4u on January 22, 2005, at 15:00:15
I have been following this thread for awhile. It has been very interesting, as I have been an advocate for depression relief for so very long.
I don't want to withhold depression relief from anyone. I don't think anyone here would ever, ever wish for that.
And I think there is one very important point that is being missed here.
Unlike many other things in life, drug approvals and drug safety are not democratic. Nor should they be.
I have a dear friend who's life improved substantially after she was given a prescription for Vioxx. She went from being in extreme pain to being able to function pretty well. Vioxx has never hurt her as far as we know. But there is a very good chance it may have caused heart attacks, strokes or death for others. I believe that consumers and the FDA were very right in pressuring Merck to withraw Vioxx from the market until further tests could be completed.
Because if one of my parents or someone I love had suffered a heart attack, stroke or even death as a result of Vioxx, I would be completely grief stricken.
The same thing is now happening with Reminyl. The post-market studies on this drug have shown some alarming possibilities. Within a certain period of time, an average of 5 people out of 100 not taking Reminyl pass away. On Reminyl, that number is 15 people out of 100.
But that's still okay, right? Because 90 people aren't possibly having these problems from the drug and might really be benefitting.
Well, no. Not exactly.
Under medical ethics, the medical community has a responsibility to not harm the patient more than they are helping them.
When that harm is possibly irreversible liver damage, heart attack, aneurysm, or death, those things are easier to measure and possibly easier to connect directly with a drug. While it is never easy to withhold treatment from a patient who is suffering--even based upon a risk--it is ethical to pursue and exhaust every other possible treatment if it means that you might be causing the patient further harm.
Sadly, with some meds, it is not always possible to know in advance how risks will affect a patient. And when those risks are extremely hard to measure, especially in the behavioral sciences, it is even harder to predict.
I think that is why Effexor bears much scrutiny. I am sure that it is helping someone somewhere, otherwise it never would have made it onto the market. So, yes, of course it is.
However--and for the those who might suffer or have to (yet again) try another course of treatment I am truly truly sorry and sad--I think enough patients have suffered from this med's withdrawal effects and possible long term effects for it to be withdrawn from the market pending further testing. It is not okay for even 10 people out of 100 to possibly suffer from long term life-disabling effects from any drug.
If it is not withdrawn from the market, I think at the very least that it should be put under investigation with warnings released to the public. That way, patients will know in advance what the risks are and that they should pursue all other treatment options available to them first (there are many--many SSRI's, tricyclics, and MAOI's have been around longer than Effexor).
I've suffered from chronic depression for over 20 years. I know how devestating it can be. I'm also convinced that drug companies are too hasty to take drugs to market because of the possible beneficial effects on stock price and desire to beat out the competition. I know this...because I was a consultant in and around this industry. I have a lot to be thankful for that is directly related to pharamaceutical advancements. But I also am extremely committed to appropriate testing and patient safety.
As always, anyone else's mileage may vary.
poster:eeyorena
thread:13781
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050119/msgs/445951.html