Contributed by: Dennis Fortier, President, Medical Care Corporation
A consumer advocate group is calling for a ban on the 23mg Aricept dosage, which was approved by the FDA for more severe stages of Alzheimer's.
While Aricept is the mostly widely prescribed drug for the treatment of AD, it is most commonly prescribed in 5mg and 10mg doses. Its efficacy in controlling symptoms is only moderate, but it has been on the market for more than a decade and has a solid safety profile. The more recently approved, higher dosage of 23mg has been associated with a higher incidence of side effects and, according to the advocacy group Public Citizen, has no greater efficacy. The primary side effects are nausea, vomiting, and agitation.
It is unclear whether the FDA will act on the petition to review the data and reverse the former approval for this dosage. However, the most salient point for treating physicians to understand is that, regardless of the dosage, cholinesterase inhibitors like Aricept yield the most clinical benefit when prescribed as poly-therapy along with Namenda. The data supporting this clinical approach are clear and compelling.
Controversy over High Dose Aricept
Labels:
Aricept
,
Cholinesterase Inhibitors
,
FDA
,
Forest Labs
,
Namenda
,
Pfizer
,
Poly-therapy
,
Public Citizen
A Call for Funding for Alzheimer's Research
Contributed by: Dennis Fortier, President, Medical Care Corporation
This is interesting. At a time when partisanship seems to have reached a high in the US political process, at least one prominent Republican is calling for an increase in spending.
Specifically, as reported by NBC News, Newt Gingrich is making the case for dramatically increasing funding for AD research. I am sure that is not a popular position with his party, but it is the right long-term perspective.
To reiterate some statistics that are widely published, we spent about $6B of federal funds last year on cancer research, about $3B on HIV research, and only $500M on AD research. All are worthy causes, but the AD program is clearly underfunded.
This is especially true when considering the full economic argument that shows the enormous cost of caring for patients with diminished cognitive capacity. It is well documented that once memory and judgment begin to slip, patients become less effective at administering self-care, and their chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension often spiral out of control. This leads to poor health and stark increases in the costs of their care.
Spending on AD research can not only accelerate our progress toward better treatments but can facilitate a return to sustainability for the US health care system.
Labels:
Alzheimer's
,
Federal Funding
Recent Press on Preventing Alzheimer's
Contributed by: Dennis Fortier, President, Medical Care Corporation
There is no hope?
Eating well, staying fit, and using your brain have no effect on your risk for Alzheimer's? Many headlines have implied this dire message over the past 24 hours.
The source of these headlines is an article published in the Archives of Neurology, online edition. The article reviewed the evidence that actively managing modifiable factors could reduce the risk of AD, and concluded that only a low level of evidence suggests a relationship between the risks and the disease.
Let's be sure not to misunderstand this.
What is a "Low Level" of Evidence?
The authors classified the level of evidence for each risk factor in accordance with accepted scientific standards. These standards allow for three levels of evidence: low, medium, and high.
Importantly, a "low" level of evidence means that real research, conducted with sound methods, that was published in peer-reviewed medical journals, showed an association between the risk factor being studied and the incidence of AD. Perhaps the association was not overly strong, perhaps the sample size was small, perhaps similar studies have not been completed to verify the result, but even a "low" level of evidence is a pretty good start in finding a meaningful association.
The panel authoring this paper, on behalf of the National Institutes of Health, found a low level of evidence that diabetes, high cholesterol, and tobacco use all confer a higher risk of Alzheimer's disease. Sure we want more evidence and a higher level of confidence, but all work so far suggests that these are real risks that need to be managed.
The panel also found a low level of evidence that a Mediterranean diet, folic acid intake, light alcohol consumption, cognitive activity, and physical activity all reduced risks of Alzheimer's. That's more good news.
This review constitutes unbiased, expert confirmation that many modifiable risk factors should in fact be managed to reduce the risk of AD. The evidence is not as strong as we would all like, but it has reached a minimum threshold of scientific scrutiny to establish a likely association.
The problem here is the massive and consistent misinterpretation of these findings by the press. In every day jargon, a "low level of evidence" is a negative testimonial as to the likelihood of an association. But in the scientific world, where facts are closely scrutinized before they qualify as "evidence", a low level of evidence connotes a pretty good start toward proving a point. It is a shame that this is not understood by the major media outlets and is not more clearly represented in their publications.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)


