Lets say that I have arthritis and
I am unhappy with the medication I am currently taking so I decide to search
the Internet for clinical trials or other “cures” that could improve the state
of my arthritis… The first thing I
came across was an article by the Wall Street Journal titled, “Did Pfizer’s
Experimental Arthritis Drug Work Too Well?” After reading this article it seemed to be that the drug
tanezumab was incredible enough that those who were taking it were able to be
so active (due to the decrease in their pain) that these actions then lead them
back to the progression of their arthritic symptoms. This idea seems to be a
little far-fetched to me.
1.
The article does not state how fast the symptoms
are relieved once the tanezumab is taken. Seeing as people who have osteoarthritis (which was
the type of arthritis mainly focused on in the text) tend to be upwards of 50
years old, and have had
degenerative issues accumulating for large portions of their lives, how fast
could a drug really alleviate all of these problems to the point where
arthritic people are able to go about living their normal lifestyles again?
2.
If it’s the older generations who are diagnosed
with osteoarthritis, is the mass majority of this population going to be running,
hiking, biking, white-water rafting, anything of this sort so much that they
are going to re-injure themselves?
In my opinion, it is absurd to
claim that this drug works too well. If a drug was working well enough, then there
shouldn’t be a progression of symptoms due to the usage of the joints. People with arthritis are taking this
drug to be able to use the joints in order to live their lives normally, so
what’s the point in taking it and still not being able to do the activities
they love? If the drug was really
that amazing, then it should reduce the symptoms of osteoarthritis and prevent
further progression of the illness no matter what kind of activities are
performed. However, the “wear and
tear” on joints is inevitable whilst using them; therefore I do understand how
being active could still affect those with arthritis.
As a person with arthritis, I might
read this article and think that there is potential solution for my
condition. Although it does say
that Pfizer was forced to take the drug off of the market for right now, there
are clinical trials underway, which could lead to tanezumab’s re-release. I think this article is used more
as a type of promotion for tanezumab if it is released, instead of being more
inquisitive of any of the negative effects that could result from taking it.
I researched ‘Pfizer’s tanezumab’
and found another article from Emax Health that was published about three
months prior that states that the drug’s trials had to be taken stopped
abruptly when there were cases of tanezumab worsening the symptoms of the
subjects taking it. This article
gives a more in-depth description of how the trials are performed and what
exactly tanezumab is. For example,
“Tanzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets nerve-growth factor,
a protein that mediates the pain response to injury. It is administered by
infusion every eight weeks” (Reynolds). This article seemed to lack a bias in either
direction, which contrasts how the Wall Street Journal was written. Also, a third article that was
published only a few months ago claims that tanezumab is the Pfizer drug
farthest away from being put back on to the market. This statement contrasts the positive out look that is
portrayed via the WSJ article. I
have realized in Dr. Cohen’s class that it is important that we read
publications with a critical eye and to not believe everything we read even
though it is published. It is
especially important for people with any type of illness to make sure that they
check all of the facts; using tanezumab as a cure for arthritis is only one
example.
Crowley, John. "FDA Recommendations Bode Well For
Pfizer - Seeking Alpha." FDA
Recommendations
Bode Well For Pfizer - Seeking Alpha. Seeking Alpha, 10 May 2012. Web. 26
Oct. 2012.
<http://seekingalpha.com/article/577981-fda-recommendations-bode-well-for-pfizer>.
Loftus, Peter. "Did Pfizer’s Experimental Arthritis Drug Work Too
Well?"
WSJ.com.
Wall Street Journal, 29 Sept. 2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2012.
<http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/09/29/did-pfizers-experimental-arthritis-drug-work-too-well/>.
Reynolds, Denise, RD. "Pfizer Immediately Halts
Tanezumab Osteoarthritis Trials."
Pfizer
Immediately Halts Tanezumab Osteoarthritis Trials. Emax Health, 24 June
2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.emaxhealth.com/1506/pfizer-immediately-halts-tanezumab-osteoarthritis-trials>.
All too often it seems that drug companies are only in the business to make money, rather than sincerely caring about the people who purchase/consume their drugs. I am not surprised that you have 3 articles that give you contrasting information and that is unfortunate, but defiantly makes the point that we need to do our research.
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with osteoarthritis personally, but I wanted to discuss the view that the WSJ article, which basically states that Tanezumab is "too good" of a drug as it caused arthritis in those taking it to progress. The article seemed to leave you with many questions. One as you have mentioned involves wondering what amount of time it takes for the drug to have a noticeable effect on many degenerative issues that older people have so that they may get back to their normal lives. The second point regarding the WSJ article you mentioned about activity and older age is great. I do not think that the majority of those who have osteoarthritis in their 50's and above are concentrating on rigorous activities, but rather, being able to go along with their daily activities without extreme pain.
But this brings me to my main question. As someone with experience with arthritis, do you know whether or not participating in those rigorous activities (hiking, biking, running etc.) can actually negatively affect one's joints and in turn cause arthritis to set in early, or make it progress later on in life at a more extreme rate compared to those who are not as active? Or instead, would increased activity be a good thing for an active person's joints? It seems that (at least in the WSJ article) that increased activity progresses arthritis, but I wasn't sure if this was because they had it previously or not. I am a very active person and am very curious about if what I think is good for me now, will be a bad thing for me 20 years down the line.
Thanks and great post!
It is sad to see what lengths drug companies are willing to go through to see their product rather than to really help people and make them better...or at least decrease their symptoms. How often in this class have we read lay articles that tell us so many positive things without justifying their claims and without backing them up? How often has a lay article started off believable and then in the end just wanted to sell their product? People who have a sickness and who are desperate to get better will try anything, and depending how educated they are about lay articles and about the validity of articles will try anything they read. These people don't realize they may be harming themselves or even making their condition worse. They believe what the drug company says and believe what they read. It's very sad that we live in a world where you can't believe anything read and can't trust anything anyone tells you. You have to do all the research yourself or find someone who know something about your disease or condition to help you out. Even physicians can't be trusted.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of this article and the drug Tanzumab, the same things I mentioned above apply. Apparently this drug was being sold as the 'wonder-drug' for arthritis. Many people bought it and felt better after a period of time. Whether it was phycological or they were really feeling better is obviously not known. So they started living their life normally again and doing the things they love, thinking that they could, since this is a wonder-drug. I'm sure no one told them to take it slow and be cautious. They just told them they would be better and could live a normal drug. Personally I'm glad the drug has been taken off of the market to be reevaluated.
My mom is a pharmacist and you will not believe the stories she tells me. Physicians prescribing drugs for the wrong disease. Physicians prescribing drugs that have many known side effects that will harm the patient due to their other conditions and on top of that, the drug is on the verge of being removed from the market. Patients being promised false things by physicians about a drug. The list goes on and on. It's really really sad to hear!
One must be skeptic about reading, agreeing, and ultimately using any kinds of drugs specially published in the lay articles; not meaning totally untrusting or trusting it completely. Adding the word 'wonder drug' and amazing inventions to a product does not really mean they are wonderful and amazing.
ReplyDeleteYa its true that it is sad when we do not meet up to our expectations, however, I would like to say that before you happily start using some drugs/medications act smart and then do a little further research about the product, learn about side effects, when and how to use it? long term side effects etc. Who can use? how long has it been since its been legally launched in the markets. These steps definitely helps you from wasting your money on wrong product/invention and losing your precious life.
Thank you and nice work.
I like to think that most people above 50 years of age are water-rafting and hiking, just kidding. This article seems like the classic blame shift. So if your a pharmaceutical company and you have a drug that has very temporary benefits, how do you phrase that so your drug is not to blame? well you could say the drug is just so good that people are able to injure themselves all over again. One reason that I can think of the Wall Street Journal being biased is the matter of funding. I read another article in regards to unethical practices of pharm companies. According to that about 99% of the advertising income of journals comes from pharm companies. So an editor is likely to approve or disapprove a contradictory article if he/she knows that the company funds 99% of their journals. The results of the company removing these adds would bankrupt the journal. I think this is a similar case, pfizer is a huge company and its advertising in WSJ or other journals is a significant amount of income and thus bias.
ReplyDelete