Drug companies are ridiculous...

netglow, ASN, RN · Oct 30, 2011

I don't use a book. Drugs books are outdated way before they hit the printer. I either would use the facility online source, or if none my itouch that has... Medscape, Epocrates, Micromedex, Davis Drug Guide on it. All are continuously updated. You can get all but Davis, and the full version of Epocrates free. I did a quick check just on one of the free ones and it does list what you are looking for.

VolunteerCPR · Oct 30, 2011

I know, but they should have listed that side effect for the last 30 years, because they knew about it, but said that the benefits outweighed the risks. It just annoyed me because they chose not to list one of the biggest risks. I feel like when I look at a list of side effects now, its just the ones they decided to list vs all known side effects.

Whispera, MSN, RN · Oct 30, 2011

I believe parts of drug guides that talk about specific drugs are not necessarily written by experts on the categories of drugs they write about. I've found several inaccuracies in Davis. It would be nice if each and every chapter was written by an expert on the drugs in it, but that seems to be pretty impossible. That means we need to become experts on the medications we give and until we are, use multiple sources including our pharmacists. I think we should also let the publishers of the drug guides know what we've found in their books.

elkpark · Oct 30, 2011

Also, while I am certainly no defender of pharmaceutical companies, it is the FDA which determines which side effects and adverse reactions are required to be listed on drug packaging and advertising, not the drug companies themselves (we all know what would happen if that were left up to the drug companies ... :rolleyes: )

VolunteerCPR · Oct 30, 2011

^ If I didn't imply they were also at fault, I meant to =)

Lifeofanurse · Oct 30, 2011

I learned something interesting...maybe not entirely true but it sure seems like it might be...

drug companies can renew their patents by conducting clinical trials on drugs currently in use by investigating suspected new uses. This can do a number of wonderful things for the pharm companies by

A) keeping known alternate uses under wraps until needed to renew their patents....and hurting pts that could benefit from those meds until their trials are completed.

B) making them millions more in revenue by extending those patents and not allowing generics to be formulated.

I think it's sickening that drug companies and insurance companies rule healthcare. They say money doesn't buy happiness...but you know what without it if you get sick...you die.

I know, you can go get county care..or whatever it's called but you could be dead before you ever get to find out what is wrong with you.

The wait for an appt is ridiculous. They won't do CT's or MRI's unless pushed..and even then...it's a nice long wait.. again..your dead before you get in for the dang test.

We should have a better system ...the one we have is just corrupted by big business...Pharm companies and insurance companies have put some very good Dr's out of business by forcing them through protocals and high premiums.

All for the love of money. Sad.

I know drug trials are expensive..as well as drug development..but they don't have to be. If you watch the movie Extraordinary Measures, or Lorenzo's oil...it's clear that drugs can definitely be produced at a better bottom line cost. It IS possible...but God forbid...they need to turn a huge profit, pay their reps to bribe Dr's to prescribe certain meds and keep their CEO's in mansions.

It's just sick.

Altra, BSN, RN · Oct 30, 2011

I learned something interesting...maybe not entirely true but it sure seems like it might be...
drug companies can renew their patents by conducting clinical trials on drugs currently in use by investigating suspected new uses. This can do a number of wonderful things for the pharm companies by
A) keeping known alternate uses under wraps until needed to renew their patents....and hurting pts that could benefit from those meds until their trials are completed.
B) making them millions more in revenue by extending those patents and not allowing generics to be formulated.
I think it's sickening that drug companies and insurance companies rule healthcare. They say money doesn't buy happiness...but you know what without it if you get sick...you die.
I know, you can go get county care..or whatever it's called but you could be dead before you ever get to find out what is wrong with you.
The wait for an appt is ridiculous. They won't do CT's or MRI's unless pushed..and even then...it's a nice long wait.. again..your dead before you get in for the dang test.
We should have a better system ...the one we have is just corrupted by big business...Pharm companies and insurance companies have put some very good Dr's out of business by forcing them through protocals and high premiums.
All for the love of money. Sad.
I know drug trials are expensive..as well as drug development..but they don't have to be. If you watch the movie Extraordinary Measures, or Lorenzo's oil...it's clear that drugs can definitely be produced at a better bottom line cost. It IS possible...but God forbid...they need to turn a huge profit, pay their reps to bribe Dr's to prescribe certain meds and keep their CEO's in mansions.
It's just sick.

Are you saying that you are in favor of nationalized, single-payer healthcare funded by taxes?

VolunteerCPR · Oct 30, 2011

Oh no, please close this thread!! Did NOT intend to start any kind of political debate.......just frustrated they did not list the worst adverse effect of a drug.

Altra, BSN, RN · Oct 30, 2011

I was doing a health history and realized just how misleading information on drug packaging (and in drug books is). I looked in my 2011 drug book for propoxyphene/Darvocet. The one and only adverse reaction shown for CV is hypotension. The drug was banned by the FDA in 2010 for causing fatal heart arrhythmias. It was known to cause heart arrhythmias since the 70's b/c it blocks sodium channels in the heart, but the FDA said the benefits outweigh the risks. Okay, fine...but everyone was in agreement that the drug caused heart arrhythmias, so WHY is the only CV side effect shown hypotension???
Drives me nuts, its so ridiculous the things they conveniently leave out. The drug might have hurt less people if doctors and nurses were aware of that adverse effect. If you're going to say "the benefits outweigh the risks" -- at least list the risks?? All of them?? Not just the ones you feel like listing?? Would make doctors and nurses jobs a lot easier/more effective if they had all of the known info.

I'm trying to figure out why an assignment requires that you spend time researching a drug that is now off the market and is no longer prescribed. Even as part of a patient's history ... how relevant is it what drugs they used to take?

And BTW -- a quick look at one drug guide http://www.rxlist.com/darvocet-n-drug.htm listed all possible side effects, including adverse cardiovascular events. I'm not sure what drug guide you are using.

Altra, BSN, RN · Oct 30, 2011

Oh no, please close this thread!! Did NOT intend to start any kind of political debate.......just frustrated they did not list the worst adverse effect of a drug.

"They" who?

Edited to add: Do you think that a thread title "Drug companies are ridiculous" carries a political connotation, given that the U.S. is currently engaged in constant debate over how to or even whether to overhaul our current system of health care financing?

VolunteerCPR · Oct 30, 2011

I'm trying to figure out why an assignment requires that you spend time researching a drug that is now off the market and is no longer prescribed. Even as part of a patient's history ... how relevant is it what drugs they used to take?
And BTW -- a quick look at one drug guide http://www.rxlist.com/darvocet-n-drug.htm listed all possible side effects, including adverse cardiovascular events. I'm not sure what drug guide you are using.

It's not a drug they used to take, they continue to take it because they had refills available to them, and have a full bottle in their cabinet, which they continue to take for pain as needed. I'm sure you are aware that patients do not always take medications as prescribed, sometimes leave bottles around, start taking them again, etc...

Drug Guide = McGraw Hill Nurse's Drug Handbook. Online versions have been updated since the drug was pulled in 2010, but again, my point was that the FDA and drug companies knew of this adverse effect for 30+ years and it was never listed (until it was pulled in 2010), and is still not listed in 2011 books printed in late 2010.