Drug companies are ridiculous...

VolunteerCPR · Oct 30, 2011

"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?

"They" = the FDA and drug companies, which I have stated twice.

I requested that this thread be closed the minute I realized it could start a political debate, but I guess instead of closing it you'd rather have the drama.

Again, my comments were intended to point out a personal frustration that I have with obvious omissions of known adverse effects, but it really looks like as a "guide" you'd just rather allow the political debate to happen, so have fun reading it I guess.

brownbook · Oct 30, 2011

I know it is not the point of your topic. But (don't you love buts) I had elderly patient who had been on Darvocet as needed for many years for her arthritic pain. Not a habitual user, just PRN.

She was extremely annoyed that she couldn't get it any more. She had tried other pain pills and found through trial and error that Darvocet worked for her!

Altra, BSN, RN · Oct 30, 2011

"They" = the FDA and drug companies, which I have stated twice.
I requested that this thread be closed the minute I realized it could start a political debate, but I guess instead of closing it you'd rather have the drama.
Again, my comments were intended to point out a personal frustration that I have with obvious omissions of known adverse effects, but it really looks like as a "guide" you'd just rather allow the political debate to happen, so have fun reading it I guess.

I stand by my note that the comments by another poster railing against the profit motive of pharmaceutical companies, and the thread title itself ... are political commentary.

I also questioned the drug guide you were using, as I offered another source which more completely listed the cardiovascular side effects of the drug in question. You might find another source more valuable when completing your assignments.

Trauma Columnist · Oct 30, 2011

Let's stay on topic please. There really is no reason to bring in politics.

usalsfyre · Oct 31, 2011

I have a far bigger issue with drug companies advertising to the general public than what may be on the box...

Did you happen to look at the full package insert or just what was on the outside of the box? Not to mention the patient shares some responsibility for knowing what they're taking.

Munch · Oct 31, 2011

It is amazing how far pharmaceutical companies will go to earn an extra buck(or hundreds for that matter). I am a pain management patient and my doctor put me on a long acting narcotic(Opana ER..they also have a short acting Opana).Opana is kind of like Dilaudid's cousin. The generic name for Opana/Opana ER is oxymorphone and obviously the generic name for Dilaudid is hydromorphone. Many doctors/nurses never even heard of it. My doctor put me on Opana ER because it works wonders for my chronic pain and the only side effect is a little bit of itching..it doesn't make me loopy and it really works wonders for my pain. Unfortunately it doesn't come in a generic form, so when I pay for it, the co-pay is 100 dollars(if you don't have insurance and you are put on this medication you are paying a little over a grand). Since it is so darn expensive no hospitals carry it and when I was hospitalized(many times due to car accidents, surgery and other things the only doctor that has ever heard of it are the pain management doctors. So I end up being put on MSContin or Oxycontin which don't even come close to the conversation rate. OR they throw out the oral medications and put me on a PCA pump and increase the basal and bolus doses quite high(I am a horse and have been in a chronic pain patient for close to four years) which is fine for when I am in the hospital but after being discharged, my oral medications are all screwed up and the pain isn't controlled as much. If this medication came out as a generic form and more hospitals carried it(they don't because it's too darn expensive and not many people heard of it) then the people who take this medication(I'm obviously not the only one) wouldn't have to deal with the problems stemming from expensive name brand medications.

xtxrn, ASN, RN · Oct 31, 2011

Darvocet was a godsend for me for years. I'm thinking that the lawyers had something to do with the removing it from the market d/t a relative few people having issues with it. jmo.

Munch · Oct 31, 2011

Never had darvocet but I have had darvon(without the APAP) before. It was an okay medication. It was prescribed for me after I was hit in the head with a softball during softball practice when I was 16. I had a mild concussion(and yes I remember how effective the medication was..it took the edge off the pain but didn't completely eradicate it. I just don't know why the medication was just recently pulled off the market even though the side effects where known about for a while...I mean it was introduced to the market in the 50's. Surely clinical trials had to know about the effects. It was a weak opiate anyway so I'm not sure society is missing much. What is upsetting is the victims that suffered the ill side effects of the medication.

Rob72, ASN, RN · Oct 31, 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.

A) No, they generally aren't "under wraps", the "off-label" uses are revealed either in phase II-III trials, or (more rarely) in widespread post-market studies.

B) Maybe, maybe not. Generally, a company will be interested in keeping the patent less for net revenue, than for operational capital- development funds for the next generational step in therapy.

Most of the time, when people discuss revenue, it becomes apparent who has, and who has not, participated in running a family business. There is no "free" revenue- there is gross profit (from which overhead and operational expenses are drawn) and net profit, which is somewhat discretionary. If net is unusually (unanticipatedly) high, yeah, there are bonuses. More typically, the vast majority of residual net will be re-invested in expansion of base operations (more production facilities, new/more efficient tooling, etc.) or acquisitions (buying up new/promising companies/product rights) that offer expansion opportunities.

I've done industry-sponsored studies, and "pure" science. I've seen serious issues, and phenominal good from both.

I don't have a hedge fund, large money-market, or even more than a CD. I do, however, have some understanding of economics. People like to have enemies when things are not going well. Enemies are far more easily made when we do not understand how a given demographic works.

It has been done with Africans, Jews, Native Americans, many others. If someone is telling one that another demographic is inhuman/greedy/useless/racist/what have you, it is generally worth some serious investigation into the sequelae. Sometimes such statements are valid; more commonly, they are a useful chant to give useful fools to create a political change.

OldNurseEducator · Oct 31, 2011

It's just sick.

Welcome to the real world...just sayin'. :devil: