Disastrous pharma ruling

[Sue U]

Wasn't Chantix originally for something else then they found it works to help stop smoking? I assume now it's a mostly stop-smoking pill but didn't it "cross treatment" before approved for stop smoking treatment? Was it ever approved for that?

Chantix was developed by modifying the molecular structure of a prior anti-smoking drug to improve its effectiveness. It does have some reported adverse effects, commonly nausea and headache, but also mood alteration, depression, and suicidal thoughts and actions.

[Rick]

It was approved for smoking cessation in 2006

[Sue U]

It is ultimately up to the doctors to prescribe the drug, so if you don't trust your doctor you should be worried about the ruling.

Doctors get their information about drugs from the drug reps, who tell them what the drug is for, how to prescribe it, and why they should prescribe this drug rather than another one. The question is whether you can trust your doctor's drug reps.

[Joe Guy]

The question is whether you can trust your doctor's drug reps.

Along with doing my own research before taking a prescribed drug, I trust my doctor to not write prescriptions based only on what he has been told by a sales person.

A trustworthy doctor doesn't base his decisions on tv & radio commercials and sales representative's claims.

[Crackpot]

And where else are they supposed to get their information?

[Scooter]

By Joe's logic people should not be prosecuted for committing fraud, because if others are gullible enough to be taken in, it is their fault.

[Joe Guy]

And where else are they supposed to get their information?

By reading medical journals and actual drug studies regarding the efficacy of drugs. Talking with their peers and keeping current on all of the latest information in medicine.

Not by reading People Magazine and its latest drug advertisements.

[Lord Jim]

By reading medical journals and actual drug studies regarding the efficacy of drugs. Talking with their peers and keeping current on all of the latest information in medicine.

I think Joe's probably right about that....

My concern about this would be regarding public advertising, and the affect that could have on the general public .

[Crackpot]

The reason drug reps are allowed is that it provides a service to the general public that is it helps keep docors informed about the latest products and procedures. The added peril of biasing the physician is balanced by the new information. The balance shifts, however, when reps are allowed to misrepresent the drugs usages.

[Crackpot]

And where else are they supposed to get their information?

By reading medical journals and actual drug studies regarding the efficacy of drugs. Talking with their peers and keeping current on all of the latest information in medicine.

Not by reading People Magazine and its latest drug advertisements.

when will they have time to practice medicine after doing all of that?

[Rick]

Scripts are NOT REQUIRED to be filled. I can do my own research (and do) and question the efficacy of any and every drug I take.

There was a day however that I wasn't just into experimentation, I was doing full scale research (stole that from Ghallagher)...

[Scooter]

By reading medical journals and actual drug studies regarding the efficacy of drugs. Talking with their peers and keeping current on all of the latest information in medicine.

Not by reading People Magazine and its latest drug advertisements.

Then prohibit all advertising of drugs, period. Prohibit drug reps from communicating with physicians in any way. Because if it doesn't really serve any purpose, it isn't really needed, is it?

[Joe Guy]

when will they have time to practice medicine after doing all of that?

During their bowel movements.

[oldr_n_wsr]

But on the plus side I had really cool dreams. And those dreams started a few moments before falling asleep and lasting a few seconds after waking up. And they were in TECHNICOLOR, and were really wierd. Almost like taking 'shrooms way back when.
When is my doctors appointment?

[Sue U]

By reading medical journals and actual drug studies regarding the efficacy of drugs. Talking with their peers and keeping current on all of the latest information in medicine.

I think Joe's probably right about that....

Hahahahahahahahahahhaha! Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Hahahahaha. Hahaha. Haha. Whew.

You both should try living in the real world.

One thing the various pharmaceutical litigations have demonstrated is the extent that prescribing docs rely on drug reps and the drug companies' marketing literature. The drug rep frequently provides the doc with the study that shows his/her product to the best advantage. But that is not necessarily the case with a drug that has been on the market for a while, and is certainly not the case when a drug is being marketed to a doc for off-label use.

My concern about this would be regarding public advertising, and the affect that could have on the general public .

That is a huge factor in what drugs are prescribed these days. The patient sees the drug advertised, goes to the doc and says "I want a scrip for Curesitall, I saw it on TV." If the patient wants it and has the condtion for which the med is indicated, why wouldn't the doc prescribe?

[Joe Guy]

Then prohibit all advertising of drugs, period. Prohibit drug reps from communicating with physicians in any way. Because if it doesn't really serve any purpose, it isn't really needed, is it?

Who said drug reps don't serve any purpose? They make money for pharmaceutical companies by pitching their product. Just like car salesmen, etc do for their companies.

Do you buy a particular car because a care salesman says it is the best or do you drive it yourself and read magazines like Consumer Reports and talk to friends about it beforehand?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Prohibit drug reps from communicating with physicians in any way. Because if it doesn't really serve any purpose, it isn't really needed, is it?

That might suck also. My physician routinely gives me samples of my blood pressure medicine that I presume are given to him buy his drug rep. I am sure (know for a fact) he gives many samples to those less fortunate than I am (aka those without insurance or ablity to pay). So sometimes, the sales reps do make a difference in the "correct" usage of drugs.

[Scooter]

Researching to buy one car every 5 or 10 years is a bit different than making hundreds of prescribing decisions every day, but E for effort.

[TPFKA@W]

You know that drug reps are the most attractive sales people I have ever seen. Back in the good old days in the OR you looked forward to visits from the drug reps. They dressed like very high end call girls (business suit style) and brought the best food which they laid out for us to eat. We also got boat loads of freebies. Not sure how influenced the Docs were by all this but by golly big pharma did try.

[Joe Guy]

That is a huge factor in what drugs are prescribed these days. The patient sees the drug advertised, goes to the doc and says "I want a scrip for Curesitall, I saw it on TV." If the patient wants it and has the condtion for which the med is indicated, why wouldn't the doc prescribe?

Because a good doctor would try other methods to deal with a condition before prescribing a drug and would know whether Curesitall is the best treatment.

If it was the best treatment, then he wouldn't necessarily need to prescribe Curesitall. He could prescribe a generic alternative

In other words, he would make informed decisions in the best interest of his patient, not his sales representative.

* note: "he" is my doctor. I don't want to have to write "he/she" every time to please the politically correct...