Arthritis drug removed for safety

Drug company Merck has removed its arthritis painkiller Vioxx because of data showing an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.
Patients currently taking the drug should contact their doctor to discuss stopping and switching to alternative treatments, experts said.

A three-year trial showed an increased risk of cardiovascular events began after 18 months of Vioxx treatment.

It has been available in the UK since 1999 and is used by 400,000 people.

US regulator the Food and Drug Administration said it would closely watch drugs in the same class as Vioxx (rofecoxib) for any signs they might raise the risk of serious heart problems.

These are known as cyclooxygenase-2 or COX-2 Inhibitors, which are more 'stomach friendly' alternatives to traditional pain relief drugs called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

Strokes and heart attacks

Following a number of adverse reports after Vioxx became available in the UK in 1999, the European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products looked into the safety of COX-2 drugs.

In 2003, it concluded that the balance of risks and benefits of the products remained positive.

But it recommended strengthening existing warnings about use in patients with underlying cardiovascular risks.

Merck's chairman Raymond Gilmartin said: "Although we believe it would have been possible to continue to market Vioxx with labelling that would incorporate these new data, given the availability of alternative therapies, and the questions raised by the data, we concluded that a voluntary withdrawal is the responsible course to take."

RCGP chair elect Mayur Lakhani said: "There is no cause for alarm but if people are worried we would advise them to stop taking Vioxx and use a safer pain-killer, which their local pharmacist will be able to advise them on.

"The next step is to make a routine appointment with their GP to arrange an alternative prescription.

"Patients should be re-assured that there are several other treatments available for arthritic pain relief."

Chairman of the medicines watchdog the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency, Professor Sir Alasdair Breckenridge, echoed this advice.

A spokeswoman from the Arthritis Research Campaign said: "This is a highly unprecedented move.

"There had been doubts about Vioxx's safety in terms of cardiovascular risk.

"There is no such thing as a drug without side effects, but the risks must have been too high."

But she did not think other COX-2 drugs would carry the same risk.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3704640.stm

"Aside from the heart attack and stroke I had, my arthritis is feeling great!"

It is tough to decide; do you leave new drugs in testing and clinical trials for years and years waiting to see what minute trends may occur or do you release them to the public where they can really help lots of people that are otherwise miserable with a miniscule chance that someone might have a negative response to the medication?

In other words, "Just what do you consider to be an 'acceptable risk' for the benefits you might gain from taking the drug?" Personally, I'd rather put up with most symptoms rather than submit my body to an unknown bunch of side effects. Every time I read the warnings on a prescription drug I shudder, so many of them end with the possible side effect of "death" That's a pretty potent side effect!

one thing that should be taken off the market is prozac. bloody dangerous stuff.

I took a vioxx pill something like 1 month ago, coz my back was hurting. I'm still here

Has anyone heard of a medicine called Ro-Accutan? It's supposed to treat acne. And I say suppose, because I remember having been treated with it when I was 16 yrs old, and what it caused me was some nasty scars on my back, plus temporary liver values trouble. And I read on the paper recently about a guy who had similar troubles (only he was less lucky, he got scars in his armpits, and this causes him lots of problems)

It seems that pharmaceutical companies don't really care for anything but filling their bank accounts

Just another symptom of the drug/pharmaceutical - insurance company - US FDA conspiracy to keep even known harmful drugs and foods [like aspartame] on the market regardless of the experimental evidence. This also keeps cheaper and better therapies off the market when a more expensive maintenance drug may be used in its place. Why cure when you can make more money in chronic treatments? Also, many more drugs are still on the market that have similar effects to liver, kidney and or heart but are not removed due to this triangle of profit over patient.