With some words of wisdom from my favorite chemistry teacher, I decided to post this assignment I completed for class after a discussion last month. We read two articles about the legitimacy of advertised drug facts and effectiveness and were asked to compose our thoughts...Enjoy!

_______________________________________________________________

Drug companies, in general, are businesses at heart. Although their advertised goal is to promote the well-being and improved health, their economic goals are first on the list of priorities. Most patients and doctors take the advertised facts about drugs, such as Lipitor and Fosamax, without thinking much of it. According to the Businessweek article on statin(cholesterol-lowering) drugs, studies have show that the number needed to treat, or NNT, is very high for most of these medications. For example, Liptor’s NNT is 100, which means that 100 people had to subject themselves to the possible side effects of this medication, good or bad, for one patient to have a measurable benefit. However, the Jarvick commercial put out by the company showed that nearly 36% of patients received the cholesterol-lowering benefits of the med. Patients go into treatment believing that there is a 36% chance that the medication will help lower their LDL and risk of heart disease, when in fact their chances are substantially lower based on the NNT. “Even medications we consider effect, we see NNTs in the 20s or higher” cites the Businessweek article. Taking prescriptions without knowing all the facts is terrific from a business front, as the companies can let people pay month after month of prescription copays while they wait for the supposed benefits. Sometimes the true benefits will never come, but just cover the symptom.

The article from Alternative Medicine talks about some of the pharmacological make-ups of different medications, like biophosphonates ( ie. Fosamax, Actonel). These medications are anti-resorption drugs, meaning that they suppress the osetoclasts that dissolve old bone, but fail to promote osteoblasts that make new bone. Now, would older people rather have medically-enhanced old bone, or new, younger bone? Exactly. But the drug companies don’t promote this little-known fact that could damage their business and reputation. If people knew how Fosamax worked, several thousand would probably stop treatment. The stupidity and ignorance of humans is used for economic gain. They scare patients into believing that without a drug, preferably the one they are marketing, their bodies will fall apart. At the heart of every drug company is a businessman trying to earn a living, even if it means altering the facts to make a buck. “Publicity…is mostly about profits not about health” says the article, and it is exactly right.

Osteoporosis and high cholesterol carry real risk. No one has denied that, but in today’s media-filled society it can be hard to navigate whether an advertised pharmaceutical or a natural remedy is the best way to go. In high-risk cases, sometimes medicines are needed. For the person whose LDL is 350, a prescription should be taken. But the person whose cholesterol is 200, medications are not always worthwhile, especially when there are other options. The Businessweek article cites that “both lifestyle changes [Mediterranean diet or more fish] brought greater declines in heart attacks than statins…being physically fit is also important” (Carey 56). The Alternative medicine article also tells us that there are several easy ways to decrease chances of osteoporosis while improving overall well-being, such as temperance,cessation of smoking, and exercise. The Alt. Medicine article explains that getting up and lifting handweights or participating in yoga can help strengthen muscles and bones at once. This can occur at any time in your life, even” folks in their 80s confined to wheelchairs” who “improve bone density by lifting 2-pound weight several times a week”. Dietary changes, like taking one multivitamin a day can have similar benefits in preventing heart attacks, fractures, and other conditions. It seems so silly to take a pill when some easy remedies could be just as effective, with added benefits to your health.. Our bodies were never made to handle the amount of chemicals we take in daily, and sometimes a natural method is the best solution.

One thing the drug companies usually fail to specify in their advertisements and “unbiased trials” are the side effects outside of the general headache and dry mouth. Sometimes, these side effects can exacerbate the symptoms. When I was first diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, my doctor suggested that I take a medication called Flagyl, a bowel-specific antibiotic to help prevent infection of the ulcerations. Most of the literature I read online was positive, and people had generally good outcomes with treatment. After I had finished the course of antibiotics, a family member came across a clinical trial where a high percentage of patients had side effects similar to the symptoms of the disease, while still getting the pharmacological benefits of the medicine seen in biopsy of colonic tissue. Looking back, I realized that most of the information I was using came from the manufacture and websites like webmd.com that make their profits based on advertising and sales. The companies also forget the typical western medicine mindset: there are lots of things to try. I went through each tier of the IBD medications, from OTCs through oral chemotherapy drugs, because each one I tried failed to produce the needed clinical benefits. I’ll never know if Flagyl did its job internally, since some of the side effects could have mimicked my disease. When people, like me, jump from one medication to the next when the supposed result fails to show, companies lose profits. This is not a flaw in business, but in research and development. If doctors can perform standstill surgery and transfer organs from one person to another, they should be able to weed out the side effects and leave the benefits before letting a prescription hit the pharmacy shelf. Maybe it’s the competition between manufactures or the businessmen pushing for something new to inflate their company, but this issue in the pharmaceutical industry is a big problem and can cause some awful consequences for patients who place their lives in the hands of their medications.

Prior to reading this article, I never really thought much of the drug companies and their mission. I figured that my doctor knew how to navigate the pitfalls of the different medications and would help me through this process. Thinking back to all of the medications I have tried since my Crohn’s disease diagnosis a few years ago, it makes me wonder if some of the drugs I’ve tried had any pathological benefit. Recently, I started treatment with Amitiza, a drug relatively new to the market, but it failed to show any real benefits, despite my doctor’s confidence in its powers. I will still continue to take my medications based on medical recommendation, but I might think a little more carefully about how I choose treatments in the future.

References: Businessweek, January 28, 2008- Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good? John Carey Alternative Medicine, April 2007- Who's Selling Osteoporosis? James Keough