Welcome to This is MS, the leading forum for Multiple Sclerosis research and support. Join our friendly community of patients, caregivers, and researchers celebrating over 20 years of delivering hope through knowledge.
https://www.thisisms.com/forum/
Not sure if you remember when the CRAB drugs first started to get approved in the early 90's. The neuros, paid by the drug companies, gave local seminars for these new medications and brought their fancy charts to show how good these drugs were and how much they helped MS patients. All approved by the FDA!David1949 wrote:FDA approves harmful ingredients in food, drink
Is this the same FDA that approved the CRAB drugs?
Hmmmm glad I don't use them.
As one study showed, 327 MS patients using Interferon studied over 21 years show a 46.8 % reduction in hazard of mortality over palcebo!! So instead of 10 MS patients dying in any one group, only 6 patients would have died if they took Interferon. And what the heck does this mean when it comes to living with MS?!!The choice of using DMTs or not must be an informed choice. Recent studies have shown that treating MS early with DMTs slows down progression:
I totally agree. I guess this is why the FDA has fined all of the drug companies who make the CRABs at some point as they have published false and erroneous information and videos about how well their drugs help MS patients.Medical decisions shouldn't be based on erroneous information. Unfortunately, the media perpetuates quite a bit of it and this video is a good example.
Other studies show little or no effect on slowing disability;bifrostlake wrote: Th Recent studies have shown that treating MS early with DMTs slows down progression:
http://www.webmd.com/multiple-sclerosis ... -treatment
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22496198
Medical decisions shouldn't be based on erroneous information. Unfortunately, the media perpetuates quite a bit of it and this video is a good example.
HarryZ wrote:As one study showed, 327 MS patients using Interferon studied over 21 years show a 46.8 % reduction in hazard of mortality over palcebo!! So instead of 10 MS patients dying in any one group, only 6 patients would have died if they took Interferon. And what the heck does this mean when it comes to living with MS?!!
The first link is about mortality in treated vs. untreated MSers and the second link is about the benefits of early treatment. I'm sure that there are studies that focus on quality of life, but that's not what the links are about.David1949 wrote: Association Between Use of Interferon Beta and Progression of Disability in Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
(Of the CRAB drugs, R, A and B are interferon beta drugs and were mentioned in the study)
The study’s Conclusion: Among patients with relapsing-remitting MS, administration of interferon beta was not associated with a reduction in progression of disability. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=1217239
A placebo is an inert substance that has no effect whatsoever on the medical condition being studied, in other words, the patients were using nothing. As far as the nature of the placebo used, the researchers may have used saline. The results for an alternative medicine would have been about the same as using a placebo. If an alternative medication is shown to be effective in randomized, double-blind trials, then it's no longer alternative, just regular, conventional medication.HarryZ wrote:The comparison was done with patients who used a placebo (of unknown nature). Why wasn't a comparison done with patients who used nothing or perhaps alternative medicine? The very nature of MS being remitting and relapsing kind of makes these studies irrelevant unless of course you are the one selling Interferon to MS patients.
That depends on a study's time-frame. Results at six months is meaningless (regardless if the intervention used is a drug or surgery) but results at 21 years is not.HarryZ wrote:The very nature of MS being remitting and relapsing kind of makes these studies irrelevant unless of course you are the one selling Interferon to MS patients.
HarryZ wrote:I guess this is why the FDA has fined all of the drug companies who make the CRABs at some point as they have published false and erroneous information and videos about how well their drugs help MS patients.
The FDA doesn't only fine drug companies. They also fine medical device companies and supplement companies, both of which fall under its purview. And just to be clear, being fined does not mean that the treatment is flawed. Drug and medical device companies just cannot make a claim about a treatment that wasn't shown in research studies. Supplements are, for some reason, treated differently.David1949 wrote:The “C” drug is not interferon beta. But the makers of the drug received a warning letter from the FDA for “false and misleading messages”. The warning letter also stated that “C… is not approved by the FDA for slowing, preventing or reversing physical disability associated with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.”
http://copaxone.com/redirect/Copaxone.c ... Letter.pdf
That's why the FDA exists. If I had a complaint about them, it would be that they are far too lenient on the supplement industry (which according to Forbes, makes a billion dollars each year) despite the fact that serious adverse events have been associated with some supplements. And legally, they can make any unproven claim that they want just as long as they have a warning label stating that any claims made have not be evaluated by the FDA somewhere on the bottle. Yes, the FDA is not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing.HarryZ wrote:When it comes to making a buck, there doesn't appear to be any barriers to prevent some people from saying and doing whatever it takes, regardless of the consequences.
Actually, Katia Noyes' research supports the WebMDs article on early treatment. Her comment:David1949 wrote:A study reported by Fox News states:
Benefit of MS Drugs Comes at Steep Price, Study Finds
Professor George Ebers was an outspoken critic of the NHS' treatment scheme mentioned in the news article from the Independent. He's also one of the authors of the mortality study linked in my original post.In the case of DMDs for MS, she said, starting earlier in the course of the disease appears to be better.
Researchers don't have to disclose what's in the placebo so we really don't know if it is having an effect on the patient. It's supposed to be inert but the very fact a patient is taking part in a trial and is using a placebo can effect them in some way.A placebo is an inert substance that has no effect whatsoever on the medical condition being studied, in other words, the patients were using nothing. As far as the nature of the placebo used, the researchers may have used saline. The results for an alternative medicine would have been about the same as using a placebo. If an alternative medication is shown to be effective in randomized, double-blind trials, then it's no longer alternative, just regular, conventional medication.
You think that 21 years guarntees the results published mean something! One only needs to look at other studies, especially the one done at UBC on several more patients. It found just the opposite in stating Interferon did little if anything with long term use. The NIH in the UK also found the CRAB drugs were a waste of money in evaluating their long term use. So it looks like the trial results depend on who is running them...drug companies say they are great...independent researchers say they are a waste of time.That depends on a study's time-frame. Results at six months is meaningless (regardless if the intervention used is a drug or surgery) but results at 21 years is not.
My point was to show that the very drug companies who make these drugs are known to make false statements in trying to promote their product. You had suggested that the patient needed to make an informed decision to which I agreed. But it's pretty hard to make an informed decision when the company making the drug is purposely giving you false information!The FDA doesn't only fine drug companies. They also fine medical device companies and supplement companies, both of which fall under its purview. And just to be clear, being fined does not mean that the treatment is flawed. Drug and medical device companies just cannot make a claim about a treatment that wasn't shown in research studies. Supplements are, for some reason, treated differently.
Yes, the FDA is NOT perfect and has been known to make some bad decisions. They are a huge government agency and you can imagine the amount of error to which they are prone.That's why the FDA exists. If I had a complaint about them, it would be that they are far too lenient on the supplement industry (which according to Forbes, makes a billion dollars each year) despite the fact that serious adverse events have been associated with some supplements. And legally, they can make any unproven claim that they want just as long as they have a warning label stating that any claims made have not be evaluated by the FDA somewhere on the bottle. Yes, the FDA is not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing.
Of course Dr. Ebers is an outspoken critic of the NHS. They are severely questioning the work which he has been involved with for many years. George has been part of the established world of MS medicine and began his MS work at London Ontario's University Hospital MS Clinic. Nice guy who has been behind the CRABs for years but that doesn't mean his views are correct.Professor George Ebers was an outspoken critic of the NHS' treatment scheme mentioned in the news article from the Independent. He's also one of the authors of the mortality study linked in my original post.