 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / September 2005Are ADHD Drugs Safe? Report Finds Little Proof
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-4705010c.html Are ADHD drugs safe? Report finds little proof M. ALEXANDER OTTO; The News Tribune Last updated: September 13th, 2005 11:35 AM (PDT) At a time when millions of children and adults are taking drugs for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, the most comprehensive scientific analysis of the drugs to date has found little evidence that they are safe, that one drug is more effective than another or that they help school performance. The 27 drugs studied included Adderall, Concerta, Strattera, Ritalin, Focalin, Cylert, Provigil, and others that, in some households, are well-known for their sometimes calming affects. The 731-page report was done by the Drug Effectiveness Review Project, based at Oregon State University. The group analyzed 2,287 studies - virtually every investigation ever done on ADHD drugs anywhere in the world - to reach its conclusions. They found: . "No evidence on long-term safety of drugs used to treat ADHD in young children" or adolescents. . "Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social achievements" and other measures. . Safety evidence is of "poor quality," including research into the possibility that some ADHD drugs could stunt growth, one of the greatest concerns of parents. . Evidence that ADHD drugs help adults "is not compelling," nor is evidence that one drug "is more tolerable than another." . The way the drugs work is, in most cases, not well understood. The findings do not mean ADHD drugs are unsafe or unhelpful, just that sound scientific proof is lacking. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Washington, D.C.-based drug industry lobby group, had no comment on the report, but its senior vice president, Ken Johnson, said the benefits of most drugs "clearly outweigh the risks." ADHD is suspected when people have a harder time than others their ages paying attention, sitting still or controlling impulses. To be diagnosed, those tendencies must interfere with work, school or other activities. Nationally, about 4.4 million kids between 4 and 17 fit the bill. Of those, more than 2.5 million take ADHD drugs. Up to 8 percent of kids in Washington state have been diagnosed with the condition. The Drug Effectiveness Review Project was formed in 2003 to give consumers and state insurance plans trustworthy information about pharmaceuticals. Industry studies, which researchers have shown sometimes are rigged for favorable outcomes, don't give the confidence "many of us would like to decide whether or not we should be using a given medication," said the project's deputy director, Mark Gibson. Complicating efforts to get reliable information, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't require companies to compare new drugs to ones on the market. Most times, firms instead compare their wares to sugar pills because it is easier to show benefit and get approved for sale. The problems leave insurers and patients in the lurch when they need to know what drugs work best. That's where the Drug Effectiveness Review Project comes in. Its physicians and pharmacists analyze virtually every study on a given class of pharmaceuticals to find the best drugs. The American Association of Retired Persons and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, use the project's findings to tell people what drugs give the most for the money. Fourteen states, including Washington, also use its services to decide what drugs to cover for beneficiaries. Those states are the project's chief funders. For ADHD, the project analyzed published studies as well as unpublished data from the six leading makers of ADHD drugs. The group rejected 2,107 investigations as unreliable, and reviewed the remaining 180 to find superior drugs. Instead, it found that evidence to choose one drug over another for safety or effectiveness is "severely limited" by a lack of studies measuring "functional or long-term outcomes." The project could not find a "good quality" study that tested the drugs against each other. It also could not find comparative evidence to determine which ADHD drugs are less likely to cause tics, seizures and heart and liver problems. That evidence is needed. Canadian authorities have recently warned against using Adderall Extended Release in patients with heart problems. Cylert and Strattera have been linked to liver damage, the report said. Until better research is done, the findings mean that choosing the right ADHD drug is largely a matter of trial and error. They also suggest some people might do as well or better on cheap generic Ritalin, sold by its scientific name methylphenidate, instead of far more expensive, newer options such as Concerta and Adderall. In fact, in the few instances where the Oregon group could draw conclusions, it found Concerta "did not show overall difference in outcomes" compared to generic Ritalin, and proof that Adderall is better "lacking." What little evidence there is comparing another newer expensive drug, Strattera, to generic Ritalin "suggests a lack of difference in efficacy." Gibson cautioned that his project's latest report is still open for public comment and possible fine-tuning. But the overall results did not surprise Libby Munn, a nurse practitioner at Greater Lakes Mental Healthcare in Lakewood. "I've never been aware of any evidence of any one being better than another," said Munn, who treats patients for ADHD and other conditions. "That's true of antidepressants and antipsychotics, too. Once you compare meds for a given disorder, there are often no proven differences." Tacoma psychiatrist Dr. Fletcher Taylor, an expert in adult ADHD at Rainier Associates, works with drug companies to develop new products. He said he stands by the effectiveness and safety of the drugs. Still, he said, Adderall and Concerta are largely equal in their effect, though some people do better on one than another. Their greatest advantage over generic Ritalin is that people take fewer pills during the day. ADHD DRUG COSTS* . Methylphenidate (generic Ritalin) $15.69 . Ritalin (brand name): $27.79 . Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine (generic Adderall): $47.09 . Adderall (brand name): $94.49 . Concerta: $103.99 . Strattera: $123.99 . Focalin: $25.99 *Comparisons based on the lowest dose for 30 days. Source: Walgreens Pharmacy FIND THE RIGHT DRUG These Web sites offer help comparing drugs to find what works best: . The American Association of Retired Persons lets you compare drugs at www.aarp.org/health/comparedrugs/ . Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports, gives tips on the best drug buys for safety and effect at www.crbestbuydrugs.org/ . The consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen has a solid record of spotting problem drugs, calling, for instance, for the removal of Vioxx in 2001, when few knew there were problems. The group is now worried about the cholesterol pill Crestor. Public Citizen's drug information site is www.worstpills.org/ . The Oregon State University Drug Effectiveness Review Project is online at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/ > http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-4705010c.html > > Are ADHD drugs safe? Report finds little proof Yes, the report found little proof that the medications have any adverse effects. > M. ALEXANDER OTTO; The News Tribune > Last updated: September 13th, 2005 11:35 AM (PDT) [quoted text clipped - 156 lines] > . The Oregon State University Drug Effectiveness Review Project is online > at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/ >> http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-4705010c.html >> >> Are ADHD drugs safe? Report finds little proof > > Yes, the report found little proof that the medications have any adverse > effects. the most comprehensive scientific analysis of the drugs to date has found little evidence that they are safe, "No evidence on long-term safety of drugs used to treat ADHD in young children" or adolescents Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social achievements" and other measures Most times, firms instead compare their wares to sugar pills because it is easier to show benefit and get approved for sale >> M. ALEXANDER OTTO; The News Tribune >> Last updated: September 13th, 2005 11:35 AM (PDT) [quoted text clipped - 160 lines] >> . The Oregon State University Drug Effectiveness Review Project is >> online at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/ >>>http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-4705010c.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the most comprehensive scientific > analysis of the drugs to date has found little evidence that they are safe, And no evidence that they are dangerous. >>>>http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-4705010c.html >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And no evidence that they are dangerous. I see, so *organized medicine* has given them freely to millions of kids even though they don't know if they are safe. Now, just what is all this squawking about alternative medicine not being proven to be safe?? *Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social achievements" and other measures* But, we just drug our kids anyway. *Most times, firms instead compare their wares to sugar pills because it is easier to show benefit and get approved for sale* And now without further interruption from Mark Probert; http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-470... Are ADHD drugs safe? Report finds little proof M. ALEXANDER OTTO; The News Tribune Last updated: September 13th, 2005 11:35 AM (PDT) At a time when millions of children and adults are taking drugs for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, the most comprehensive scientific analysis of the drugs to date has found little evidence that they are safe, that one drug is more effective than another or that they help school performance. The 27 drugs studied included Adderall, Concerta, Strattera, Ritalin, Focalin, Cylert, Provigil, and others that, in some households, are well-known for their sometimes calming affects. The 731-page report was done by the Drug Effectiveness Review Project, based at Oregon State University. The group analyzed 2,287 studies - virtually every investigation ever done on ADHD drugs anywhere in the world - to reach its conclusions. They found: . "No evidence on long-term safety of drugs used to treat ADHD in young children" or adolescents. . "Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social achievements" and other measures. . Safety evidence is of "poor quality," including research into the possibility that some ADHD drugs could stunt growth, one of the greatest concerns of parents. . Evidence that ADHD drugs help adults "is not compelling," nor is evidence that one drug "is more tolerable than another." . The way the drugs work is, in most cases, not well understood. The findings do not mean ADHD drugs are unsafe or unhelpful, just that sound scientific proof is lacking. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Washington, D.C.-based drug industry lobby group, had no comment on the report, but its senior vice president, Ken Johnson, said the benefits of most drugs "clearly outweigh the risks." ADHD is suspected when people have a harder time than others their ages paying attention, sitting still or controlling impulses. To be diagnosed, those tendencies must interfere with work, school or other activities. Nationally, about 4.4 million kids between 4 and 17 fit the bill. Of those, more than 2.5 million take ADHD drugs. Up to 8 percent of kids in Washington state have been diagnosed with the condition. The Drug Effectiveness Review Project was formed in 2003 to give consumers and state insurance plans trustworthy information about pharmaceuticals. Industry studies, which researchers have shown sometimes are rigged for favorable outcomes, don't give the confidence "many of us would like to decide whether or not we should be using a given medication," said the project's deputy director, Mark Gibson. Complicating efforts to get reliable information, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't require companies to compare new drugs to ones on the market. Most times, firms instead compare their wares to sugar pills because it is easier to show benefit and get approved for sale. The problems leave insurers and patients in the lurch when they need to know what drugs work best. That's where the Drug Effectiveness Review Project comes in. Its physicians and pharmacists analyze virtually every study on a given class of pharmaceuticals to find the best drugs. The American Association of Retired Persons and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, use the project's findings to tell people what drugs give the most for the money. Fourteen states, including Washington, also use its services to decide what drugs to cover for beneficiaries. Those states are the project's chief funders. For ADHD, the project analyzed published studies as well as unpublished data from the six leading makers of ADHD drugs. The group rejected 2,107 investigations as unreliable, and reviewed the remaining 180 to find superior drugs. Instead, it found that evidence to choose one drug over another for safety or effectiveness is "severely limited" by a lack of studies measuring "functional or long-term outcomes." The project could not find a "good quality" study that tested the drugs against each other. It also could not find comparative evidence to determine which ADHD drugs are less likely to cause tics, seizures and heart and liver problems. That evidence is needed. Canadian authorities have recently warned against using Adderall Extended Release in patients with heart problems. Cylert and Strattera have been linked to liver damage, the report said. Until better research is done, the findings mean that choosing the right ADHD drug is largely a matter of trial and error. They also suggest some people might do as well or better on cheap generic Ritalin, sold by its scientific name methylphenidate, instead of far more expensive, newer options such as Concerta and Adderall. In fact, in the few instances where the Oregon group could draw conclusions, it found Concerta "did not show overall difference in outcomes" compared to generic Ritalin, and proof that Adderall is better "lacking." What little evidence there is comparing another newer expensive drug, Strattera, to generic Ritalin "suggests a lack of difference in efficacy." Gibson cautioned that his project's latest report is still open for public comment and possible fine-tuning. But the overall results did not surprise Libby Munn, a nurse practitioner at Greater Lakes Mental Healthcare in Lakewood. "I've never been aware of any evidence of any one being better than another," said Munn, who treats patients for ADHD and other conditions. "That's true of antidepressants and antipsychotics, too. Once you compare meds for a given disorder, there are often no proven differences." Tacoma psychiatrist Dr. Fletcher Taylor, an expert in adult ADHD at Rainier Associates, works with drug companies to develop new products. He said he stands by the effectiveness and safety of the drugs. Still, he said, Adderall and Concerta are largely equal in their effect, though some people do better on one than another. Their greatest advantage over generic Ritalin is that people take fewer pills during the day. ADHD DRUG COSTS* . Methylphenidate (generic Ritalin) $15.69 . Ritalin (brand name): $27.79 . Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine (generic Adderall): $47.09 . Adderall (brand name): $94.49 . Concerta: $103.99 . Strattera: $123.99 . Focalin: $25.99 *Comparisons based on the lowest dose for 30 days. Source: Walgreens Pharmacy FIND THE RIGHT DRUG These Web sites offer help comparing drugs to find what works best: . The American Association of Retired Persons lets you compare drugs at www.aarp.org/health/comparedrugs/ . Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports, gives tips on the best drug buys for safety and effect at www.crbestbuydrugs.org/ . The consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen has a solid record of spotting problem drugs, calling, for instance, for the removal of Vioxx in 2001, when few knew there were problems. The group is now worried about the cholesterol pill Crestor. Public Citizen's drug information site is www.worstpills.org/ . The Oregon State University Drug Effectiveness Review Project is online at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/ > I see, so *organized medicine* has given them freely to millions of kids > even though they don't know if they are safe. There is no "*organized medicine*" as you use it, Jan. It simply doesn't exist.  Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >> I see, so *organized medicine* has given them freely to millions of kids >> even though they don't know if they are safe. > > There is no "*organized medicine*" as you use it, Jan. It simply doesn't > exist. My, my double standards. Hyprocrite. I provide this definition of a term ****as I use it***** > --Rich >>> I see, so *organized medicine* has given them freely to millions of kids >>> even though they don't know if they are safe. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I provide this definition of a term ****as I use it***** You've provided no definition of any kind, which is understandable, because your usage of the term in context is meaningless. It implies a conspiracy that does not, and could not exist. You speak of things being "endorsed" by OM when there is obviously no organization offering such endorsements. In the above line you claim that OM gives drugs "freely" to millions of kids, when it's obvious that the physicians and parents who medicate their ADHD children are NOT "organized" in any meaningful way. You accuse people here of being "*organized medicine*", even those who are not physicians, or pharmacists, or employed in any way in healthcare. In other words, the term, as you use it, is a catch-all of pejorative meanings and thus has no meaning at all, and therefore your accusations are meaningless as well. There is no "*organized medicine*", Jan. It simply doesn't exist. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ <snip Rich's diversion> >>>>http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-4705010c.html >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And no evidence that they are dangerous. I see, so *organized medicine* has given them freely to millions of kids even though they don't know if they are safe. Now, just what is all this squawking about alternative medicine not being proven to be safe?? *Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social achievements" and other measures* But, we just drug our kids anyway. *Most times, firms instead compare their wares to sugar pills because it is easier to show benefit and get approved for sale* And now without further interruption from Mark Probert; http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-470... Are ADHD drugs safe? Report finds little proof M. ALEXANDER OTTO; The News Tribune Last updated: September 13th, 2005 11:35 AM (PDT) At a time when millions of children and adults are taking drugs for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, the most comprehensive scientific analysis of the drugs to date has found little evidence that they are safe, that one drug is more effective than another or that they help school performance. The 27 drugs studied included Adderall, Concerta, Strattera, Ritalin, Focalin, Cylert, Provigil, and others that, in some households, are well-known for their sometimes calming affects. The 731-page report was done by the Drug Effectiveness Review Project, based at Oregon State University. The group analyzed 2,287 studies - virtually every investigation ever done on ADHD drugs anywhere in the world - to reach its conclusions. They found: . "No evidence on long-term safety of drugs used to treat ADHD in young children" or adolescents. . "Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social achievements" and other measures. . Safety evidence is of "poor quality," including research into the possibility that some ADHD drugs could stunt growth, one of the greatest concerns of parents. . Evidence that ADHD drugs help adults "is not compelling," nor is evidence that one drug "is more tolerable than another." . The way the drugs work is, in most cases, not well understood. The findings do not mean ADHD drugs are unsafe or unhelpful, just that sound scientific proof is lacking. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Washington, D.C.-based drug industry lobby group, had no comment on the report, but its senior vice president, Ken Johnson, said the benefits of most drugs "clearly outweigh the risks." ADHD is suspected when people have a harder time than others their ages paying attention, sitting still or controlling impulses. To be diagnosed, those tendencies must interfere with work, school or other activities. Nationally, about 4.4 million kids between 4 and 17 fit the bill. Of those, more than 2.5 million take ADHD drugs. Up to 8 percent of kids in Washington state have been diagnosed with the condition. The Drug Effectiveness Review Project was formed in 2003 to give consumers and state insurance plans trustworthy information about pharmaceuticals. Industry studies, which researchers have shown sometimes are rigged for favorable outcomes, don't give the confidence "many of us would like to decide whether or not we should be using a given medication," said the project's deputy director, Mark Gibson. Complicating efforts to get reliable information, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't require companies to compare new drugs to ones on the market. Most times, firms instead compare their wares to sugar pills because it is easier to show benefit and get approved for sale. The problems leave insurers and patients in the lurch when they need to know what drugs work best. That's where the Drug Effectiveness Review Project comes in. Its physicians and pharmacists analyze virtually every study on a given class of pharmaceuticals to find the best drugs. The American Association of Retired Persons and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, use the project's findings to tell people what drugs give the most for the money. Fourteen states, including Washington, also use its services to decide what drugs to cover for beneficiaries. Those states are the project's chief funders. For ADHD, the project analyzed published studies as well as unpublished data from the six leading makers of ADHD drugs. The group rejected 2,107 investigations as unreliable, and reviewed the remaining 180 to find superior drugs. Instead, it found that evidence to choose one drug over another for safety or effectiveness is "severely limited" by a lack of studies measuring "functional or long-term outcomes." The project could not find a "good quality" study that tested the drugs against each other. It also could not find comparative evidence to determine which ADHD drugs are less likely to cause tics, seizures and heart and liver problems. That evidence is needed. Canadian authorities have recently warned against using Adderall Extended Release in patients with heart problems. Cylert and Strattera have been linked to liver damage, the report said. Until better research is done, the findings mean that choosing the right ADHD drug is largely a matter of trial and error. They also suggest some people might do as well or better on cheap generic Ritalin, sold by its scientific name methylphenidate, instead of far more expensive, newer options such as Concerta and Adderall. In fact, in the few instances where the Oregon group could draw conclusions, it found Concerta "did not show overall difference in outcomes" compared to generic Ritalin, and proof that Adderall is better "lacking." What little evidence there is comparing another newer expensive drug, Strattera, to generic Ritalin "suggests a lack of difference in efficacy." Gibson cautioned that his project's latest report is still open for public comment and possible fine-tuning. But the overall results did not surprise Libby Munn, a nurse practitioner at Greater Lakes Mental Healthcare in Lakewood. "I've never been aware of any evidence of any one being better than another," said Munn, who treats patients for ADHD and other conditions. "That's true of antidepressants and antipsychotics, too. Once you compare meds for a given disorder, there are often no proven differences." Tacoma psychiatrist Dr. Fletcher Taylor, an expert in adult ADHD at Rainier Associates, works with drug companies to develop new products. He said he stands by the effectiveness and safety of the drugs. Still, he said, Adderall and Concerta are largely equal in their effect, though some people do better on one than another. Their greatest advantage over generic Ritalin is that people take fewer pills during the day. ADHD DRUG COSTS* . Methylphenidate (generic Ritalin) $15.69 . Ritalin (brand name): $27.79 . Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine (generic Adderall): $47.09 . Adderall (brand name): $94.49 . Concerta: $103.99 . Strattera: $123.99 . Focalin: $25.99 *Comparisons based on the lowest dose for 30 days. Source: Walgreens Pharmacy FIND THE RIGHT DRUG These Web sites offer help comparing drugs to find what works best: . The American Association of Retired Persons lets you compare drugs at www.aarp.org/health/comparedrugs/ . Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports, gives tips on the best drug buys for safety and effect at www.crbestbuydrugs.org/ . The consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen has a solid record of spotting problem drugs, calling, for instance, for the removal of Vioxx in 2001, when few knew there were problems. The group is now worried about the cholesterol pill Crestor. Public Citizen's drug information site is www.worstpills.org/ . The Oregon State University Drug Effectiveness Review Project is online at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/ > --Rich > <snip Rich's diversion> Once again, Jan snips the truths that make her uncomfortable, posts 10Kb of irrelevant diversion, and sings "LA, LA, LA, LA," with her fingers in her ears, in the hope that they (the truths) will go away. Sad that. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >> <snip Rich's diversion> >>> <snip Rich's diversion> Oh, pardon me for "diverting" from your valuable contribution to the newsgroup. We wouldn't want anybody's attention to stray from your post that contains nothing except your futile snipping of other peoples' comments. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>> <snip Rich's diversion> > > Oh, pardon me for "diverting" from your valuable contribution to the > newsgroup. We wouldn't want anybody's attention to stray from your post > that contains nothing except your futile snipping of other peoples' > comments. Other peoples' comments are always welcome, UNLESS, they are *twisting* of what the article actually stated. That is EXACTLY what Mark Probert did, and YOU tried to help him, therefore your diversions are snipped. Your PROVEN LYING recommended websites are snipped as well. >Your PROVEN LYING recommended websites are snipped as well. These are the web site Jan snipped: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ Please list the lies on the ACAHF web site, Jan. The ones on the CSICOP site should be interesting, too. Did you know that the owner of the web site www.skeptic.com was a proselytizing Christian? SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >>Your PROVEN LYING recommended websites are snipped as well. >>>Your PROVEN LYING recommended websites are snipped as well. http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ (re-posted by the Jan Drew anti-snipping consortium) >>>> Your PROVEN LYING recommended websites are snipped as well. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (re-posted by the Jan Drew anti-snipping consortium) this message was inadvertently also email to Jan. <ditto from last post> >>>>> Your PROVEN LYING recommended websites are snipped as well. > <ditto from last post> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ <diversions from topic and childish waste of bandwidth deleted> . >>>>Your PROVEN LYING recommended websites are snipped as well. > <diversions from topic and childish waste of bandwidth deleted> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>>>http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-4705010c.html >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I see, so *organized medicine* has given them freely to millions of kids > even though they don't know if they are safe. However, the report does not mention evidence of harm. Hmmm...no harm... > Now, just what is all this squawking about alternative medicine not being > proven to be safe?? Of course it isn't proven. The medications have been shown to be safe in short term usage, and no evidence had come to light to indicate that there are long term problems. > *Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global > academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social achievements" > and other measures* > > But, we just drug our kids anyway. However, there are many kids who do well because they can sit still and pay attention. > *Most times, firms instead compare their wares to sugar pills because > it is easier to show benefit and get approved for sale* That is SOP, however, there are other studies. > And now without further interruption from Mark Probert; You wish. >>>>>>http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-4705010c.html >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > However, the report does not mention evidence of harm. Hmmm...no harm... I see, so *organized medicine* has given them freely to millions of kids even though they don't know if they are safe. >> Now, just what is all this squawking about alternative medicine not >> being proven to be safe?? > > Of course it isn't proven. The medications have been shown to be safe in > short term usage, and no evidence had come to light to indicate that there > are long term problems. You forget to answer the question, which you were twisting what the article said. Now, just what is all this squawking about alternative medicine not being proven to be safe?? >> *Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global >> academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > However, there are many kids who do well because they can sit still and > pay attention. Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social achievements" and other measures* >> *Most times, firms instead compare their wares to sugar pills because >> it is easier to show benefit and get approved for sale* > > That is SOP, however, there are other studies. Most times, firms instead compare their wares to sugar pills because it is easier to show benefit and get approved for sale* >> And now without further interruption from Mark Probert; <snip> http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-470... Are ADHD drugs safe? Report finds little proof M. ALEXANDER OTTO; The News Tribune Last updated: September 13th, 2005 11:35 AM (PDT) At a time when millions of children and adults are taking drugs for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, the most comprehensive scientific analysis of the drugs to date has found little evidence that they are safe, that one drug is more effective than another or that they help school performance. The 27 drugs studied included Adderall, Concerta, Strattera, Ritalin, Focalin, Cylert, Provigil, and others that, in some households, are well-known for their sometimes calming affects. The 731-page report was done by the Drug Effectiveness Review Project, based at Oregon State University. The group analyzed 2,287 studies - virtually every investigation ever done on ADHD drugs anywhere in the world - to reach its conclusions. They found: . "No evidence on long-term safety of drugs used to treat ADHD in young children" or adolescents. . "Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social achievements" and other measures. . Safety evidence is of "poor quality," including research into the possibility that some ADHD drugs could stunt growth, one of the greatest concerns of parents. . Evidence that ADHD drugs help adults "is not compelling," nor is evidence that one drug "is more tolerable than another." . The way the drugs work is, in most cases, not well understood. The findings do not mean ADHD drugs are unsafe or unhelpful, just that sound scientific proof is lacking. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Washington, D.C.-based drug industry lobby group, had no comment on the report, but its senior vice president, Ken Johnson, said the benefits of most drugs "clearly outweigh the risks." ADHD is suspected when people have a harder time than others their ages paying attention, sitting still or controlling impulses. To be diagnosed, those tendencies must interfere with work, school or other activities. Nationally, about 4.4 million kids between 4 and 17 fit the bill. Of those, more than 2.5 million take ADHD drugs. Up to 8 percent of kids in Washington state have been diagnosed with the condition. The Drug Effectiveness Review Project was formed in 2003 to give consumers and state insurance plans trustworthy information about pharmaceuticals. Industry studies, which researchers have shown sometimes are rigged for favorable outcomes, don't give the confidence "many of us would like to decide whether or not we should be using a given medication," said the project's deputy director, Mark Gibson. Complicating efforts to get reliable information, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't require companies to compare new drugs to ones on the market. Most times, firms instead compare their wares to sugar pills because it is easier to show benefit and get approved for sale. The problems leave insurers and patients in the lurch when they need to know what drugs work best. That's where the Drug Effectiveness Review Project comes in. Its physicians and pharmacists analyze virtually every study on a given class of pharmaceuticals to find the best drugs. The American Association of Retired Persons and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, use the project's findings to tell people what drugs give the most for the money. Fourteen states, including Washington, also use its services to decide what drugs to cover for beneficiaries. Those states are the project's chief funders. For ADHD, the project analyzed published studies as well as unpublished data from the six leading makers of ADHD drugs. The group rejected 2,107 investigations as unreliable, and reviewed the remaining 180 to find superior drugs. Instead, it found that evidence to choose one drug over another for safety or effectiveness is "severely limited" by a lack of studies measuring "functional or long-term outcomes." The project could not find a "good quality" study that tested the drugs against each other. It also could not find comparative evidence to determine which ADHD drugs are less likely to cause tics, seizures and heart and liver problems. That evidence is needed. Canadian authorities have recently warned against using Adderall Extended Release in patients with heart problems. Cylert and Strattera have been linked to liver damage, the report said. Until better research is done, the findings mean that choosing the right ADHD drug is largely a matter of trial and error. They also suggest some people might do as well or better on cheap generic Ritalin, sold by its scientific name methylphenidate, instead of far more expensive, newer options such as Concerta and Adderall. In fact, in the few instances where the Oregon group could draw conclusions, it found Concerta "did not show overall difference in outcomes" compared to generic Ritalin, and proof that Adderall is better "lacking." What little evidence there is comparing another newer expensive drug, Strattera, to generic Ritalin "suggests a lack of difference in efficacy." Gibson cautioned that his project's latest report is still open for public comment and possible fine-tuning. But the overall results did not surprise Libby Munn, a nurse practitioner at Greater Lakes Mental Healthcare in Lakewood. "I've never been aware of any evidence of any one being better than another," said Munn, who treats patients for ADHD and other conditions. "That's true of antidepressants and antipsychotics, too. Once you compare meds for a given disorder, there are often no proven differences." Tacoma psychiatrist Dr. Fletcher Taylor, an expert in adult ADHD at Rainier Associates, works with drug companies to develop new products. He said he stands by the effectiveness and safety of the drugs. Still, he said, Adderall and Concerta are largely equal in their effect, though some people do better on one than another. Their greatest advantage over generic Ritalin is that people take fewer pills during the day. ADHD DRUG COSTS* . Methylphenidate (generic Ritalin) $15.69 . Ritalin (brand name): $27.79 . Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine (generic Adderall): $47.09 . Adderall (brand name): $94.49 . Concerta: $103.99 . Strattera: $123.99 . Focalin: $25.99 *Comparisons based on the lowest dose for 30 days. Source: Walgreens Pharmacy FIND THE RIGHT DRUG These Web sites offer help comparing drugs to find what works best: . The American Association of Retired Persons lets you compare drugs at www.aarp.org/health/comparedrugs/ . Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports, gives tips on the best drug buys for safety and effect at www.crbestbuydrugs.org/ . The consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen has a solid record of spotting problem drugs, calling, for instance, for the removal of Vioxx in 2001, when few knew there were problems. The group is now worried about the cholesterol pill Crestor. Public Citizen's drug information site is www.worstpills.org/ . The Oregon State University Drug Effectiveness Review Project is online at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/ >>> I see, so *organized medicine* has given them freely to millions of kids >>> even though they don't know if they are safe. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I see, so *organized medicine* has given them freely to millions of kids > even though they don't know if they are safe. No Jan, "*organized medicine*" has not "given" anything to anyone. Doctors, many of whom belong to no organizations whatsoever, and none of whom belong to an organization called "*organized medicine*", have prescribed the medications. Parents, none of whom belong to an organization called "*organized medicine*", have had the prescriptions filled by their pharmacists, who also do not belong to any organization called "*organized medicine*". None of the parties involved are organized together or separately. There is no "*organized medicine*", Jan. It is a figment of your paranoid imagination. (Cue Jan to snip this and call it a "diversion") Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>> I see, so *organized medicine* has given them freely to millions of >>>> kids [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No Jan, "*organized medicine*" has not "given" anything to anyone. YES, Rich *roganized medicine*, NOT "*organized medicine*" has given them freely to millions of kids even though they don't know if they are safe. Doctors, > many of whom belong to no organizations whatsoever, and none of whom > belong > to an organization called "*organized medicine*", have prescribed the > medications. True. Convention medicine has given them freely to millions of kids even though they don't know if they are safe. Parents, none of whom belong to an organization called > "*organized medicine*", have had the prescriptions filled by their > pharmacists, who also do not belong to any organization called "*organized > medicine*". It is *organized medcine* who rule the Pharmaceutical companies, HELLOOOOOOOOOOOO, Rich. None of the parties involved are organized together or > separately. There is no "*organized medicine*", Jan. It is a figment of > your > paranoid imagination. There is INDEED *organized medicine*, Rich. Your diversion of this subject will NOT work. Too bad this article blows your little world, Rich. 1. LadyLollipop Sep 15, 10:28 pm show options Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative From: "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@insightbb.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:28:50 GMT Local: Thurs, Sep 15 2005 10:28 pm Subject: Are ADHD Drugs Safe? Report Finds Little Proof Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-470... Are ADHD drugs safe? Report finds little proof M. ALEXANDER OTTO; The News Tribune Last updated: September 13th, 2005 11:35 AM (PDT) At a time when millions of children and adults are taking drugs for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, the most comprehensive scientific analysis of the drugs to date has found little evidence that they are safe, that one drug is more effective than another or that they help school performance. The 27 drugs studied included Adderall, Concerta, Strattera, Ritalin, Focalin, Cylert, Provigil, and others that, in some households, are well-known for their sometimes calming affects. The 731-page report was done by the Drug Effectiveness Review Project, based at Oregon State University. The group analyzed 2,287 studies - virtually every investigation ever done on ADHD drugs anywhere in the world - to reach its conclusions. They found: . "No evidence on long-term safety of drugs used to treat ADHD in young children" or adolescents. . "Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social achievements" and other measures. . Safety evidence is of "poor quality," including research into the possibility that some ADHD drugs could stunt growth, one of the greatest concerns of parents. . Evidence that ADHD drugs help adults "is not compelling," nor is evidence that one drug "is more tolerable than another." . The way the drugs work is, in most cases, not well understood. The findings do not mean ADHD drugs are unsafe or unhelpful, just that sound scientific proof is lacking. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Washington, D.C.-based drug industry lobby group, had no comment on the report, but its senior vice president, Ken Johnson, said the benefits of most drugs "clearly outweigh the risks." ADHD is suspected when people have a harder time than others their ages paying attention, sitting still or controlling impulses. To be diagnosed, those tendencies must interfere with work, school or other activities. Nationally, about 4.4 million kids between 4 and 17 fit the bill. Of those, more than 2.5 million take ADHD drugs. Up to 8 percent of kids in Washington state have been diagnosed with the condition. The Drug Effectiveness Review Project was formed in 2003 to give consumers and state insurance plans trustworthy information about pharmaceuticals. Industry studies, which researchers have shown sometimes are rigged for favorable outcomes, don't give the confidence "many of us would like to decide whether or not we should be using a given medication," said the project's deputy director, Mark Gibson. Complicating efforts to get reliable information, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't require companies to compare new drugs to ones on the market. Most times, firms instead compare their wares to sugar pills because it is easier to show benefit and get approved for sale. The problems leave insurers and patients in the lurch when they need to know what drugs work best. That's where the Drug Effectiveness Review Project comes in. Its physicians and pharmacists analyze virtually every study on a given class of pharmaceuticals to find the best drugs. The American Association of Retired Persons and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, use the project's findings to tell people what drugs give the most for the money. Fourteen states, including Washington, also use its services to decide what drugs to cover for beneficiaries. Those states are the project's chief funders. For ADHD, the project analyzed published studies as well as unpublished data from the six leading makers of ADHD drugs. The group rejected 2,107 investigations as unreliable, and reviewed the remaining 180 to find superior drugs. Instead, it found that evidence to choose one drug over another for safety or effectiveness is "severely limited" by a lack of studies measuring "functional or long-term outcomes." The project could not find a "good quality" study that tested the drugs against each other. It also could not find comparative evidence to determine which ADHD drugs are less likely to cause tics, seizures and heart and liver problems. That evidence is needed. Canadian authorities have recently warned against using Adderall Extended Release in patients with heart problems. Cylert and Strattera have been linked to liver damage, the report said. Until better research is done, the findings mean that choosing the right ADHD drug is largely a matter of trial and error. They also suggest some people might do as well or better on cheap generic Ritalin, sold by its scientific name methylphenidate, instead of far more expensive, newer options such as Concerta and Adderall. In fact, in the few instances where the Oregon group could draw conclusions, it found Concerta "did not show overall difference in outcomes" compared to generic Ritalin, and proof that Adderall is better "lacking." What little evidence there is comparing another newer expensive drug, Strattera, to generic Ritalin "suggests a lack of difference in efficacy." Gibson cautioned that his project's latest report is still open for public comment and possible fine-tuning. But the overall results did not surprise Libby Munn, a nurse practitioner at Greater Lakes Mental Healthcare in Lakewood. "I've never been aware of any evidence of any one being better than another," said Munn, who treats patients for ADHD and other conditions. "That's true of antidepressants and antipsychotics, too. Once you compare meds for a given disorder, there are often no proven differences." Tacoma psychiatrist Dr. Fletcher Taylor, an expert in adult ADHD at Rainier Associates, works with drug companies to develop new products. He said he stands by the effectiveness and safety of the drugs. Still, he said, Adderall and Concerta are largely equal in their effect, though some people do better on one than another. Their greatest advantage over generic Ritalin is that people take fewer pills during the day. ADHD DRUG COSTS* . Methylphenidate (generic Ritalin) $15.69 . Ritalin (brand name): $27.79 . Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine (generic Adderall): $47.09 . Adderall (brand name): $94.49 . Concerta: $103.99 . Strattera: $123.99 . Focalin: $25.99 *Comparisons based on the lowest dose for 30 days. Source: Walgreens Pharmacy FIND THE RIGHT DRUG These Web sites offer help comparing drugs to find what works best: . The American Association of Retired Persons lets you compare drugs at www.aarp.org/health/comparedrugs/ . Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports, gives tips on the best drug buys for safety and effect at www.crbestbuydrugs.org/ . The consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen has a solid record of spotting problem drugs, calling, for instance, for the removal of Vioxx in 2001, when few knew there were problems. The group is now worried about the cholesterol pill Crestor. Public Citizen's drug information site is www.worstpills.org/ . The Oregon State University Drug Effectiveness Review Project is online at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/ > (Cue Jan to snip this and call it a "diversion") Cue, your cue didn't work, either. Fifth snipped. It matters not what the subject is, Richard H Jacobson sees my name and starts foaming at the mouth. His pattern of cyberstalking and badgering started long before me, I just happened to be his current target, all others he has run off, boo hoo, he has failed to do that with me. See his pattern here: http://tinyurl.com/39u2g http://tinyurl.com/2vxcl http://tinyurl.com/2nbzc http://tinyurl.com/3gzhf Cue for Richard H Jacobson/akaRich..@.. to post with his usual cyberstalking and attacking me. Just watch. Just like clockwork. Sorry to belabor the obvious. Somethings are so predictable -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance Cue Mark Probert, who also has become a cyberstalker to attack me also. Cue Rich Shewmaker to attack and harass Cue any of the *gang* to attack >Convention medicine has given them freely to millions of kids even though >they don't know if they are safe. Conventional medicine has given Elavil and Neurontin freely to countless individuals with peripheral neuropathy even though they don't know that they are safe. Of course Jan Drew, even though this is a fact, not only took these medications for years but thanked God for them. She is a hypocrite. Cue Jan to say that we are not talking about Jan. Cue Jan to say we are not talking about Elavil and Neurontin. Cue Jan to start a new thread attacking me instead of dealing with her hypocrisy. Just watch. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > YES, Rich *roganized medicine*, NOT "*organized medicine*" has given them > freely to millions of kids > even though they don't know if they are safe. This is such a non-specific claim that it reminds me of the one you made that doctors were prescribing without a diagnosis. Of course, that was totally refuted, but, as usual, you did not admit you made it up. That is surely the case here...doctors are NOT freely giving to millions of kids. Instead, they are prescribing the best medication possible. >> YES, Rich *roganized medicine*, NOT "*organized medicine*" has given >> them freely to millions of kids >> even though they don't know if they are safe. > > This is such a non-specific claim that it reminds me of the one you made > that doctors were prescribing without a diagnosis. No need to take off in yet another direction, Mark. That was discussed and you were the loser as usual. I disagree it is a non-specific claim. > Of course, that was totally refuted, but, as usual, you did not admit you > made it up. I did not make it up, and it was not totally refuted, just the opposite. You are not only a liar, you have a short memory as well as too lazy to look anything up. Ideally diagnosis of a child would involve a visit with the child, reports on his schoolwork, examination of his home life, and discussions with parents and teachers to develop a profile of the child and his situation. <snip more twisting> > >> YES, Rich *roganized medicine*, NOT "*organized medicine*" has given > >> them freely to millions of kids [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > examination of his home life, and discussions with parents and > teachers to develop a profile of the child and his situation. Incredibly, Lollipop, without attribution, nicked her entire last paragraph from this 1998 article on the World Socialist Website: http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/nov1998/rit-n04.shtml I only googled it because it seemed remarkably literate for Lollipop. Bless. Cathy > <snip more twisting> >> >> YES, Rich *roganized medicine*, NOT "*organized medicine*" has given >> >> them freely to millions of kids [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I only googled it because it seemed remarkably literate for Lollipop. > Bless. Amazingly, Lady Lollipop does not believe me when I explain to her that plagiarism is lying and thievery. Perhaps it's a good thing that she never went to college, because she would certainly have been expelled for the plagiarism in her required term papers. In fact, it's good for her that she attended high school those many years ago instead of recently. With the plagiarism-detecting software that's available to teachers now, she would not get away with the theft and lies even at that level. Lollipoop hides behind that old excuse that, "Lots of people do it." Undoubtedly she shoplifts on the same principle. --Rich >>> >> YES, Rich *roganized medicine*, NOT "*organized medicine*" has given >>> >> them freely to millions of kids [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > --Rich Poor, Rich >>>>YES, Rich *roganized medicine*, NOT "*organized medicine*" has given >>>>them freely to millions of kids [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >><snip more twisting> It is an example of how, when caught with her panties in a wedgie, she finds a way to divert. >> >> YES, Rich *roganized medicine*, NOT "*organized medicine*" has given >> >> them freely to millions of kids [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I only googled it because it seemed remarkably literate for Lollipop. > Bless. WRONG Actually, I looked it up under my name. drew63929@aol.com prescribing without a diagnosis Your attempt ro belittle falls falt, as usual. > Cathy >> >> <snip more twisting> > >> >> YES, Rich *roganized medicine*, NOT "*organized medicine*" has given > >> >> them freely to millions of kids [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > drew63929@aol.com prescribing without a diagnosis Whenever she first nicked it from the actual author is irrelevant. She here used it under her own name without attribution. As I said, it seemed remarkably literate for Lollipop. > Your attempt ro belittle falls falt, as usual. Did this have a meaning? Cathy > > Cathy > >> > >> <snip more twisting> <diversion snipped> >> >> >> YES, Rich *roganized medicine*, NOT "*organized medicine*" has >> >> >> given [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> >> >> >> <snip more twisting> > <diversion snipped> Bless. Lollipop illustrates her indefatiguable faith in the notion that snipping something like: "Whenever she first nicked it from the actual author is irrelevant. She here used it under her own name without attribution. As I said, it seemed remarkably literate for Lollipop. > Your attempt ro belittle falls falt, as usual. Did this have a meaning? Cathy" will actually mean that no-one ever read or wrote it. <snip Lollicrap> >>> Ideally diagnosis of a child would involve a visit with the child, >>> reports [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Your attempt ro belittle falls falt, as usual. Ah, "I already stole it, so it is really MINE after all." Now THAT's an original excuse. You are a liar and a thief, Jan, and snipping this comment will not alter that truth. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ <ALL diversion for the subject snipped> Subject restored Are ADHD drugs safe? Report finds little proof M. ALEXANDER OTTO; The News Tribune Last updated: September 13th, 2005 11:35 AM (PDT) At a time when millions of children and adults are taking drugs for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, the most comprehensive scientific analysis of the drugs to date has found little evidence that they are safe, that one drug is more effective than another or that they help school performance. The 27 drugs studied included Adderall, Concerta, Strattera, Ritalin, Focalin, Cylert, Provigil, and others that, in some households, are well-known for their sometimes calming affects. The 731-page report was done by the Drug Effectiveness Review Project, based at Oregon State University. The group analyzed 2,287 studies - virtually every investigation ever done on ADHD drugs anywhere in the world - to reach its conclusions. They found: . "No evidence on long-term safety of drugs used to treat ADHD in young children" or adolescents. . "Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social achievements" and other measures. . Safety evidence is of "poor quality," including research into the possibility that some ADHD drugs could stunt growth, one of the greatest concerns of parents. . Evidence that ADHD drugs help adults "is not compelling," nor is evidence that one drug "is more tolerable than another." . The way the drugs work is, in most cases, not well understood. The findings do not mean ADHD drugs are unsafe or unhelpful, just that sound scientific proof is lacking. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Washington, D.C.-based drug industry lobby group, had no comment on the report, but its senior vice president, Ken Johnson, said the benefits of most drugs "clearly outweigh the risks." ADHD is suspected when people have a harder time than others their ages paying attention, sitting still or controlling impulses. To be diagnosed, those tendencies must interfere with work, school or other activities. Nationally, about 4.4 million kids between 4 and 17 fit the bill. Of those, more than 2.5 million take ADHD drugs. Up to 8 percent of kids in Washington state have been diagnosed with the condition. The Drug Effectiveness Review Project was formed in 2003 to give consumers and state insurance plans trustworthy information about pharmaceuticals. Industry studies, which researchers have shown sometimes are rigged for favorable outcomes, don't give the confidence "many of us would like to decide whether or not we should be using a given medication," said the project's deputy director, Mark Gibson. Complicating efforts to get reliable information, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't require companies to compare new drugs to ones on the market. Most times, firms instead compare their wares to sugar pills because it is easier to show benefit and get approved for sale. The problems leave insurers and patients in the lurch when they need to know what drugs work best. That's where the Drug Effectiveness Review Project comes in. Its physicians and pharmacists analyze virtually every study on a given class of pharmaceuticals to find the best drugs. The American Association of Retired Persons and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, use the project's findings to tell people what drugs give the most for the money. Fourteen states, including Washington, also use its services to decide what drugs to cover for beneficiaries. Those states are the project's chief funders. For ADHD, the project analyzed published studies as well as unpublished data from the six leading makers of ADHD drugs. The group rejected 2,107 investigations as unreliable, and reviewed the remaining 180 to find superior drugs. Instead, it found that evidence to choose one drug over another for safety or effectiveness is "severely limited" by a lack of studies measuring "functional or long-term outcomes." The project could not find a "good quality" study that tested the drugs against each other. It also could not find comparative evidence to determine which ADHD drugs are less likely to cause tics, seizures and heart and liver problems. That evidence is needed. Canadian authorities have recently warned against using Adderall Extended Release in patients with heart problems. Cylert and Strattera have been linked to liver damage, the report said. Until better research is done, the findings mean that choosing the right ADHD drug is largely a matter of trial and error. They also suggest some people might do as well or better on cheap generic Ritalin, sold by its scientific name methylphenidate, instead of far more expensive, newer options such as Concerta and Adderall. In fact, in the few instances where the Oregon group could draw conclusions, it found Concerta "did not show overall difference in outcomes" compared to generic Ritalin, and proof that Adderall is better "lacking." What little evidence there is comparing another newer expensive drug, Strattera, to generic Ritalin "suggests a lack of difference in efficacy." Gibson cautioned that his project's latest report is still open for public comment and possible fine-tuning. But the overall results did not surprise Libby Munn, a nurse practitioner at Greater Lakes Mental Healthcare in Lakewood. "I've never been aware of any evidence of any one being better than another," said Munn, who treats patients for ADHD and other conditions. "That's true of antidepressants and antipsychotics, too. Once you compare meds for a given disorder, there are often no proven differences." Tacoma psychiatrist Dr. Fletcher Taylor, an expert in adult ADHD at Rainier Associates, works with drug companies to develop new products. He said he stands by the effectiveness and safety of the drugs. Still, he said, Adderall and Concerta are largely equal in their effect, though some people do better on one than another. Their greatest advantage over generic Ritalin is that people take fewer pills during the day. ADHD DRUG COSTS* . Methylphenidate (generic Ritalin) $15.69 . Ritalin (brand name): $27.79 . Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine (generic Adderall): $47.09 . Adderall (brand name): $94.49 . Concerta: $103.99 . Strattera: $123.99 . Focalin: $25.99 *Comparisons based on the lowest dose for 30 days. Source: Walgreens Pharmacy FIND THE RIGHT DRUG These Web sites offer help comparing drugs to find what works best: . The American Association of Retired Persons lets you compare drugs at www.aarp.org/health/comparedrugs/ . Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports, gives tips on the best drug buys for safety and effect at www.crbestbuydrugs.org/ . The consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen has a solid record of spotting problem drugs, calling, for instance, for the removal of Vioxx in 2001, when few knew there were problems. The group is now worried about the cholesterol pill Crestor. Public Citizen's drug information site is www.worstpills.org/ . The Oregon State University Drug Effectiveness Review Project is online at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/ M. Alexander Otto: 253-597-8616 alex.otto@thenewstribune.com Originally published: September 13th, 2005 12:01 AM (PDT) > <ALL diversion for the subject snipped> Okay Jan, how is it that you feel the need to point out the "lies" of others, even when those "lies" exist only in your own imagination, but when you blatantly lie and steal, pointing it out is a mere "diversion"? YOU ARE A LIAR AND A THIEF, and snipping it and calling it diversion will not change that fact. You STEAL other peoples words, and then you tell a LIE by presenting them as something that you wrote yourself. That is the subject now, and you cannot divert attention from that truth no matter how much you snip. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>YES, Rich *roganized medicine*, NOT "*organized medicine*" has given >>>them freely to millions of kids [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No need to take off in yet another direction, Mark. That was discussed and > you were the loser as usual. Bull. In you imagination. You never proved your claim. You couldn't, and what I, and others, found, disproved your claim. > I disagree it is a non-specific claim. That is a lie. >>Of course, that was totally refuted, but, as usual, you did not admit you >>made it up. > > I did not make it up, and it was not totally refuted, just the opposite. Nope. You claim was totally refuted, and, since you were the one making a false claim, you made it up. > You are not only a liar, you have a short memory as well as too lazy to look > anything up. My memory on this issue is crystal clear, and, you were unable to prove your claim. > Ideally diagnosis of a child would involve a visit with the child, reports > on his schoolwork, > examination of his home life, and discussions with parents and > teachers to develop a profile of the child and his situation. > > <snip more twisting> You never proved that you needed to have a diagnosis, just authorization to dispense medication. Period. And, nothing has changed since then. >>>>>>>http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-4705010c.html >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I see, so *organized medicine* has given them freely to millions of kids > even though they don't know if they are safe. I have posted a URL in the past citing the meds used to trat ADHD as being the safest. No, I will not bother to look it up, as you will snip it andnot bother to look. >>>Now, just what is all this squawking about alternative medicine not >>>being proven to be safe?? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You forget to answer the question, which you were twisting what the article > said. I was pointing out what the STUDY did not find, i.e. evidence of harm. > Now, just what is all this squawking about alternative medicine not being > proven to be safe?? Correct. No evidence of safety or effecitveness, and, further, no effort to look for safety and effectiveness. That, dingbat, is the difference between the two. >>>*Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global >>>academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social [quoted text clipped - 185 lines] > . The Oregon State University Drug Effectiveness Review Project is online > at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/ >>>>>>>>http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-4705010c.html >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I have posted a URL in the past citing the meds used to trat ADHD as being > the safest. No, I will not bother to look it up, That's what, I thought. <snip> >>>>Now, just what is all this squawking about alternative medicine not >>>>being proven to be safe?? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to look for safety and effectiveness. That, dingbat, is the difference > between the two. I see, you failed to answered the question, AGAIN. >>>>*Good quality evidence . is lacking" that ADHD drugs improve "global >>>>academic performance, consequences of risky behaviors, social [quoted text clipped - 219 lines] >> online >> at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/ >>>>>>>>>http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-4705010c.html >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > That's what, I thought. That is a lie. You do not think. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 243 lines] >>>online >>>at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.