Using Avandia in Cystic Fibrosis

S

saveferris2009

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>KrazyKat</b></i>

Eeeek! one quick google search brings this puppy up with enough lawsuits and FDA warnings to resink the titanic!

</end quote></div>

That's the state of every drug now-a-days.

Did you know that the #1 reason for hospital admission for liver failure is <b> TYLENOL </b>

Re-read the lawsuits and warnings on all the meds you take regularly - meds have a risk benefit ratio.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
It's actually a drug normally prescribed for type 2 Diabetes, but is known to cause frequent heart attacks in anybody with any sort of heart disease. </end quote></div>

Well if you read the article I posted, the jury is still out with regards to the heart issue. There are conflicting studies.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>

I also don't like the idea of taking a diabetes drug for a diabetes i don't have, on the premise that it 'may or may not' improve inflammation, depending on my specific genetics and modifier genes (which can't be quantified) and this 'possible improvement in inflammation", can only be assessed by an IGE test anyway, which doesn't tell us where any inflammation is coming from anyway.

</end quote></div>

Hence more studies being conducted..... No one is saying you should run out and get the drug right now.

I certainly haven't run out and obtained Zocor or Levitra.
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>KrazyKat</b></i>

Eeeek! one quick google search brings this puppy up with enough lawsuits and FDA warnings to resink the titanic!

</end quote></div>

That's the state of every drug now-a-days.

Did you know that the #1 reason for hospital admission for liver failure is <b> TYLENOL </b>

Re-read the lawsuits and warnings on all the meds you take regularly - meds have a risk benefit ratio.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
It's actually a drug normally prescribed for type 2 Diabetes, but is known to cause frequent heart attacks in anybody with any sort of heart disease. </end quote></div>

Well if you read the article I posted, the jury is still out with regards to the heart issue. There are conflicting studies.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>

I also don't like the idea of taking a diabetes drug for a diabetes i don't have, on the premise that it 'may or may not' improve inflammation, depending on my specific genetics and modifier genes (which can't be quantified) and this 'possible improvement in inflammation", can only be assessed by an IGE test anyway, which doesn't tell us where any inflammation is coming from anyway.

</end quote></div>

Hence more studies being conducted..... No one is saying you should run out and get the drug right now.

I certainly haven't run out and obtained Zocor or Levitra.
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>KrazyKat</b></i>

Eeeek! one quick google search brings this puppy up with enough lawsuits and FDA warnings to resink the titanic!

</end quote></div>

That's the state of every drug now-a-days.

Did you know that the #1 reason for hospital admission for liver failure is <b> TYLENOL </b>

Re-read the lawsuits and warnings on all the meds you take regularly - meds have a risk benefit ratio.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
It's actually a drug normally prescribed for type 2 Diabetes, but is known to cause frequent heart attacks in anybody with any sort of heart disease. </end quote></div>

Well if you read the article I posted, the jury is still out with regards to the heart issue. There are conflicting studies.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>

I also don't like the idea of taking a diabetes drug for a diabetes i don't have, on the premise that it 'may or may not' improve inflammation, depending on my specific genetics and modifier genes (which can't be quantified) and this 'possible improvement in inflammation", can only be assessed by an IGE test anyway, which doesn't tell us where any inflammation is coming from anyway.

</end quote></div>

Hence more studies being conducted..... No one is saying you should run out and get the drug right now.

I certainly haven't run out and obtained Zocor or Levitra.
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>KrazyKat</b></i>

Eeeek! one quick google search brings this puppy up with enough lawsuits and FDA warnings to resink the titanic!

</end quote>

That's the state of every drug now-a-days.

Did you know that the #1 reason for hospital admission for liver failure is <b> TYLENOL </b>

Re-read the lawsuits and warnings on all the meds you take regularly - meds have a risk benefit ratio.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
It's actually a drug normally prescribed for type 2 Diabetes, but is known to cause frequent heart attacks in anybody with any sort of heart disease. </end quote>

Well if you read the article I posted, the jury is still out with regards to the heart issue. There are conflicting studies.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>

I also don't like the idea of taking a diabetes drug for a diabetes i don't have, on the premise that it 'may or may not' improve inflammation, depending on my specific genetics and modifier genes (which can't be quantified) and this 'possible improvement in inflammation", can only be assessed by an IGE test anyway, which doesn't tell us where any inflammation is coming from anyway.

</end quote>

Hence more studies being conducted..... No one is saying you should run out and get the drug right now.

I certainly haven't run out and obtained Zocor or Levitra.
 
S

saveferris2009

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>KrazyKat</b></i>
<br />
<br />Eeeek! one quick google search brings this puppy up with enough lawsuits and FDA warnings to resink the titanic!
<br />
<br /></end quote>
<br />
<br />That's the state of every drug now-a-days.
<br />
<br />Did you know that the #1 reason for hospital admission for liver failure is <b> TYLENOL </b>
<br />
<br />Re-read the lawsuits and warnings on all the meds you take regularly - meds have a risk benefit ratio.
<br />
<br /><div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
<br />It's actually a drug normally prescribed for type 2 Diabetes, but is known to cause frequent heart attacks in anybody with any sort of heart disease. </end quote>
<br />
<br />Well if you read the article I posted, the jury is still out with regards to the heart issue. There are conflicting studies.
<br />
<br />
<br /><div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
<br />
<br />I also don't like the idea of taking a diabetes drug for a diabetes i don't have, on the premise that it 'may or may not' improve inflammation, depending on my specific genetics and modifier genes (which can't be quantified) and this 'possible improvement in inflammation", can only be assessed by an IGE test anyway, which doesn't tell us where any inflammation is coming from anyway.
<br />
<br /></end quote>
<br />
<br />Hence more studies being conducted..... No one is saying you should run out and get the drug right now.
<br />
<br />I certainly haven't run out and obtained Zocor or Levitra.
 
H

hmw

New member
A brand-new chemical compound that hits the pipeline that even has a whisper of possibility for addressing major cf-related symptoms is immediately hailed as a potential major breakthrough in the making. Any 'new' compound carries the risk of causing any number of adverse reactions as well as the potential for treating other unrelated conditions (i.e. taking any new drug could result in us also treating any number of other 'diseases we don't even have' due to other, as yet unknown, ways the new drug affects us systemically.)

It also, even if a potentially amazing drug, has to go through trials and tests that take years to complete before it's available to benefit a meaningful amount of people. Due to all that, I think active research into already-existing meds is a great thing to keep pursuing for sure.

So I really don't understand the negativity towards something that shows any sign of promise, when it's a drug that is already available to the public, thus taking many years off the timeline required to get a treatment out to the public should it be found helpful (since it's already available.)

Maybe it won't pan out to mean anything and will never be used to treat a single cf patient (this has certainly been true for many things already); maybe the risk/benefit ratio won't be felt to be worth it when it comes to the heart disease issue. But without enough investigation having yet been done and initial research showing some promise, why should we assume it's meaningless?
 
H

hmw

New member
A brand-new chemical compound that hits the pipeline that even has a whisper of possibility for addressing major cf-related symptoms is immediately hailed as a potential major breakthrough in the making. Any 'new' compound carries the risk of causing any number of adverse reactions as well as the potential for treating other unrelated conditions (i.e. taking any new drug could result in us also treating any number of other 'diseases we don't even have' due to other, as yet unknown, ways the new drug affects us systemically.)

It also, even if a potentially amazing drug, has to go through trials and tests that take years to complete before it's available to benefit a meaningful amount of people. Due to all that, I think active research into already-existing meds is a great thing to keep pursuing for sure.

So I really don't understand the negativity towards something that shows any sign of promise, when it's a drug that is already available to the public, thus taking many years off the timeline required to get a treatment out to the public should it be found helpful (since it's already available.)

Maybe it won't pan out to mean anything and will never be used to treat a single cf patient (this has certainly been true for many things already); maybe the risk/benefit ratio won't be felt to be worth it when it comes to the heart disease issue. But without enough investigation having yet been done and initial research showing some promise, why should we assume it's meaningless?
 
H

hmw

New member
A brand-new chemical compound that hits the pipeline that even has a whisper of possibility for addressing major cf-related symptoms is immediately hailed as a potential major breakthrough in the making. Any 'new' compound carries the risk of causing any number of adverse reactions as well as the potential for treating other unrelated conditions (i.e. taking any new drug could result in us also treating any number of other 'diseases we don't even have' due to other, as yet unknown, ways the new drug affects us systemically.)

It also, even if a potentially amazing drug, has to go through trials and tests that take years to complete before it's available to benefit a meaningful amount of people. Due to all that, I think active research into already-existing meds is a great thing to keep pursuing for sure.

So I really don't understand the negativity towards something that shows any sign of promise, when it's a drug that is already available to the public, thus taking many years off the timeline required to get a treatment out to the public should it be found helpful (since it's already available.)

Maybe it won't pan out to mean anything and will never be used to treat a single cf patient (this has certainly been true for many things already); maybe the risk/benefit ratio won't be felt to be worth it when it comes to the heart disease issue. But without enough investigation having yet been done and initial research showing some promise, why should we assume it's meaningless?
 
H

hmw

New member
A brand-new chemical compound that hits the pipeline that even has a whisper of possibility for addressing major cf-related symptoms is immediately hailed as a potential major breakthrough in the making. Any 'new' compound carries the risk of causing any number of adverse reactions as well as the potential for treating other unrelated conditions (i.e. taking any new drug could result in us also treating any number of other 'diseases we don't even have' due to other, as yet unknown, ways the new drug affects us systemically.)

It also, even if a potentially amazing drug, has to go through trials and tests that take years to complete before it's available to benefit a meaningful amount of people. Due to all that, I think active research into already-existing meds is a great thing to keep pursuing for sure.

So I really don't understand the negativity towards something that shows any sign of promise, when it's a drug that is already available to the public, thus taking many years off the timeline required to get a treatment out to the public should it be found helpful (since it's already available.)

Maybe it won't pan out to mean anything and will never be used to treat a single cf patient (this has certainly been true for many things already); maybe the risk/benefit ratio won't be felt to be worth it when it comes to the heart disease issue. But without enough investigation having yet been done and initial research showing some promise, why should we assume it's meaningless?
 
H

hmw

New member
A brand-new chemical compound that hits the pipeline that even has a whisper of possibility for addressing major cf-related symptoms is immediately hailed as a potential major breakthrough in the making. Any 'new' compound carries the risk of causing any number of adverse reactions as well as the potential for treating other unrelated conditions (i.e. taking any new drug could result in us also treating any number of other 'diseases we don't even have' due to other, as yet unknown, ways the new drug affects us systemically.)
<br />
<br />It also, even if a potentially amazing drug, has to go through trials and tests that take years to complete before it's available to benefit a meaningful amount of people. Due to all that, I think active research into already-existing meds is a great thing to keep pursuing for sure.
<br />
<br />So I really don't understand the negativity towards something that shows any sign of promise, when it's a drug that is already available to the public, thus taking many years off the timeline required to get a treatment out to the public should it be found helpful (since it's already available.)
<br />
<br />Maybe it won't pan out to mean anything and will never be used to treat a single cf patient (this has certainly been true for many things already); maybe the risk/benefit ratio won't be felt to be worth it when it comes to the heart disease issue. But without enough investigation having yet been done and initial research showing some promise, why should we assume it's meaningless?
 
A

AnD

New member
This is one of the "no no" class of drugs for CFRDers with liver disease, btw.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Talk about the chicken and the egg! I would like to take this drug (one day, if it shows that it helps significantly), because it could help my cf messed up organs, but will it help my liver (from the cf side) or fry my liver (from the liver disease in general side) first...ugh. Interesting article though, Amy. Thanks.
 
A

AnD

New member
This is one of the "no no" class of drugs for CFRDers with liver disease, btw.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Talk about the chicken and the egg! I would like to take this drug (one day, if it shows that it helps significantly), because it could help my cf messed up organs, but will it help my liver (from the cf side) or fry my liver (from the liver disease in general side) first...ugh. Interesting article though, Amy. Thanks.
 
A

AnD

New member
This is one of the "no no" class of drugs for CFRDers with liver disease, btw.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Talk about the chicken and the egg! I would like to take this drug (one day, if it shows that it helps significantly), because it could help my cf messed up organs, but will it help my liver (from the cf side) or fry my liver (from the liver disease in general side) first...ugh. Interesting article though, Amy. Thanks.
 
A

AnD

New member
This is one of the "no no" class of drugs for CFRDers with liver disease, btw.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Talk about the chicken and the egg! I would like to take this drug (one day, if it shows that it helps significantly), because it could help my cf messed up organs, but will it help my liver (from the cf side) or fry my liver (from the liver disease in general side) first...ugh. Interesting article though, Amy. Thanks.
 
A

AnD

New member
This is one of the "no no" class of drugs for CFRDers with liver disease, btw.
<br />
<br /> It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Talk about the chicken and the egg! I would like to take this drug (one day, if it shows that it helps significantly), because it could help my cf messed up organs, but will it help my liver (from the cf side) or fry my liver (from the liver disease in general side) first...ugh. Interesting article though, Amy. Thanks.
 
F

Futant3

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>saveferris2009</b></i>

Fast tracked? You can use the medication NOW.



You don't need FDA approval for use of medication in a different population than what was originally intended.



Zithromax is used in CF even though it's labeling specifically says it shouldn't be used in CF.



Colistin doesn't have a label for nebbed use in CF, but the CF community uses it anyway.



It's called using a medication "off-label." And off-label Avandia use isn't any different.



You could start using it tomorrow.</end quote></div>

You are correct, I didn't even think about it in the context of being an "off label" situation. I was thinking in terms of more research for those doctors and insurance companies that are more "by the book". Of course this is early enough that I'll need more research too.
 
F

Futant3

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>saveferris2009</b></i>

Fast tracked? You can use the medication NOW.



You don't need FDA approval for use of medication in a different population than what was originally intended.



Zithromax is used in CF even though it's labeling specifically says it shouldn't be used in CF.



Colistin doesn't have a label for nebbed use in CF, but the CF community uses it anyway.



It's called using a medication "off-label." And off-label Avandia use isn't any different.



You could start using it tomorrow.</end quote></div>

You are correct, I didn't even think about it in the context of being an "off label" situation. I was thinking in terms of more research for those doctors and insurance companies that are more "by the book". Of course this is early enough that I'll need more research too.
 
F

Futant3

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>saveferris2009</b></i>

Fast tracked? You can use the medication NOW.



You don't need FDA approval for use of medication in a different population than what was originally intended.



Zithromax is used in CF even though it's labeling specifically says it shouldn't be used in CF.



Colistin doesn't have a label for nebbed use in CF, but the CF community uses it anyway.



It's called using a medication "off-label." And off-label Avandia use isn't any different.



You could start using it tomorrow.</end quote></div>

You are correct, I didn't even think about it in the context of being an "off label" situation. I was thinking in terms of more research for those doctors and insurance companies that are more "by the book". Of course this is early enough that I'll need more research too.
 
F

Futant3

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>saveferris2009</b></i>

Fast tracked? You can use the medication NOW.



You don't need FDA approval for use of medication in a different population than what was originally intended.



Zithromax is used in CF even though it's labeling specifically says it shouldn't be used in CF.



Colistin doesn't have a label for nebbed use in CF, but the CF community uses it anyway.



It's called using a medication "off-label." And off-label Avandia use isn't any different.



You could start using it tomorrow.</end quote>

You are correct, I didn't even think about it in the context of being an "off label" situation. I was thinking in terms of more research for those doctors and insurance companies that are more "by the book". Of course this is early enough that I'll need more research too.
 
F

Futant3

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>saveferris2009</b></i>
<br />
<br />Fast tracked? You can use the medication NOW.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />You don't need FDA approval for use of medication in a different population than what was originally intended.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Zithromax is used in CF even though it's labeling specifically says it shouldn't be used in CF.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Colistin doesn't have a label for nebbed use in CF, but the CF community uses it anyway.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />It's called using a medication "off-label." And off-label Avandia use isn't any different.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />You could start using it tomorrow.</end quote>
<br />
<br />You are correct, I didn't even think about it in the context of being an "off label" situation. I was thinking in terms of more research for those doctors and insurance companies that are more "by the book". Of course this is early enough that I'll need more research too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top