That's Fit

New research was recently released on a weight-loss drug called taranabant. Developed by Merck, taranabant suppresses appetite by blocking the CB1 receptor. Interestingly, the drug was developed by using existing research on marijuana, which just happens to be a CB1 stimulator. That's why pot smokers get hungry post-dose.

In the taranabant study, 553 obese patients received either a placebo or a .5, 2, 4 or 6 milligram daily dose of the drug for 12 weeks. A total of 358 patients completed the study. Those on the highest dose lost about 11 pounds compared to a 2.6 pound loss for the placebo group. But as the dose of taranabant increased, so did reports of gastrointestinal and psychiatric problems (e.g., anxiety, diarrhea, nausea, frequent bowel movements or vomiting).

Taranabant is part of the same class of drugs as rimonabant (Acomplia). Keep in mind rimonabant is marketed in Europe, but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration due to suicidal thoughts reported by some users. No suicidal thoughts were reported for taranabant in this study, but an upcoming larger trial will pose the question. One expert noted drugs like taranabant will likely be prescribed for overweight or obese people with complications such as type 2 diabetes -- not those seeking a quick, ten pound loss.

After considering whether to allow Merck's Mevacor cholesterol-lowering drug to be sold over-the-counter in pharmacies and drugstores nationwide, the FDA said Friday that it has rejected Merck's proposal.

Citing that too many people without cholesterol problems would have access to the drug, the FDA ruled that Mevacor must remain a prescription product. It's amazing that many people would choose to use Mevacor even though they had no business taking the drug.

Does anyone do research before just buying any drug, or are purchasing decisions made on slick marketing alone? Amazing.

It's interesting to see that Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, wants to make its Mevacor cholesterol-lowering drug available as an over-the-counter drug, but that is precisely what is happening.

However, the FDA wonders if making the drug available to anyone who wants it will lead to many patients taking the drug who really do not need it.

It's hard to imagine folks without high cholesterol problems seeking our Mevacor at the local Wal-Mart, but of course this would happen in an age of "fix this" medicines and instant gratification health environments.

Case in point -- only 20 percent of potential patients interviewed by Merck answered all questions correctly when quizzed about proper usage of Mevacor.

Merck's new Isentress drug has been approved to treat HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) strains that have been found to be resistant to many antiretroviral drugs, according to the pharmaceutical manufacturer.

Newer drugs that treat AIDS have become exciting in the last 24 months as more advanced have been made in fighting the virus responsible for the disease. Isentress, for example, works by interfering with an enzyme needed by the HIV-1 virus to multiply.

This specific drug is meant to be used with former, more conventional HIV treatments where viral replication has been seen despite the use of antiretroviral drugs.

In what could be interpreted as a PR move or an act of genuine goodness, drug giant Merck has plans to give up to one million doses of its cancer drug Gardisil away for free.

Up to one million women in some of the world's poorest countries will be given the drug donations, which will be given in three shots spread over three months.

Cervical cancer, which is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide according to Merck, is highly preventable in many cases since the cause stems from a viral infection, usually by unprotected sexual contact.

In many cases, it can be prevented by prudent sexual practices as well as preventive screening, which can detect the early stages of cervical cancer.

Pharmaceutical companies are in a precarious position these days. On one hand, some of the industry's products help many people tremendously. Well, according to some, anyway.

On the other hand are the side effects to popular prescription drugs that do more harm to many that the disease that was originally targeted. Merck's Vioxx is the most media-covered example of this.

In another setback for the company, a developing AIDS vaccine may not make it to market after the company pulled a large international test of the experimental product after seeing what appears to be a high level of failures.

It's not for a lack of trying, and this field is one of the more promising ones in drug science, way ahead of drugs that treat what I believe to be completely preventable conditions in many, like diabetes and heart disease.

Living with HIV is often difficult enough, but if you're on AIDS-fighting drugs and your body has built up a resistance to them over time, often you may feel like the dash of hope you once had is starting to fade.

If you've stopped responding to other AIDS drug recently, a new HIV product from Merck may be the answer. So much, in fact, that the FDA has stated Merck's Isentress drug is a superior solution for AIDS patients who have built up an immunity to other drugs.

In general, the FDA seems like it is one inconsistent, bureaucratic organization that is very hard to trust these days. But, when it comes to prescription drugs meant to fight several viral infections, new developments can be seen as very positive. I believe Isentress may fall into that category.

It was quite surprising that the FDA returned the Vioxx anti-pain drug to the market after it was pulled by its manufacturer due to reports of serious heart problem side effects. How about you? Anyway, the drug's manufacturer, Merck, is facing another hurdle as its Arcoxia drug is facing intense scrutiny as well. In other words, the FDA sent Arcoxia packing with a non-approval.

But in related news, reports came in just after Arcoxia's FDA rejection hurdles that stated 1,000 Vioxx lawsuits may be thrown out of court. The mixed signals for Merck here end in the company stating that "We will continue to market Arcoxia outside the U.S., where it has been approved for a broad range of applications, including osteoarthritis."

It seems like the more popular some pharmaceutical drugs become, the more and more we hear about the side effects of certain drugs that make many of us shudder. In that vein, a few high-profile medical heart experts from the U.S. stated that Merck's arthritis drug Arcoxia showed risks that should effectively ban its use in the U.S.

In addition, the medical experts stated that Arcoxia posed unacceptable dangers in the 63 countries where it is already sold. Both Dr. Steven Nissen Dr. Curt Furberg concluded that "All versions of Arcoxia should be taken off the market now."

Nissen and Furberg were also an ardent critics of Merck's Vioxx drug as well -- and that drug went crashing down in history just a few years ago after patients starting dying from heart complications while using that drug.

It's a shame that the pharmaceutical industry is focused on sales instead of helping patients, but that is what has been happening for years now. Why on earth are drug companies advertising so much? Because -- patients tend to believe advertising (unfortunately) that promises a "quick fix".

But, some doctors are getting tired of drug company sales representatives invading their offices so regularly to sell more and more information that will lead to more and more prescriptions. The drug gamut encircles drugs from cholesterol management to insomnia to depression. Name a "possible condition" and there is probably a drug for it -- one with insanely huge markups.

Will this continue? Probably not -- and hopefully the medical industry will get back to the business of healing patients with care and genuine health methodologies -- and will stop using the "cure all" drugs that promise to fix just about any condition (real or not). Pharmaceutical drug reps will most likely be looking for alternative employment if this trend of shutting them out of physician offices continues. Are you for it?

Merck has stopped promoting the mandatory use of Gardasil that targets the human papillomavirus (HPV). It's probably no coincidence that their turn-around comes at the same time that reports from the National Vaccine Information Center are surfacing about fainting and dizziness reported by dozens of patients as side effects of Gardasil. There are also some concerns that Gardasil may cause infertility.

An early version of the Virginia house bill contained a clause addressing liability issues "if a female who is inoculated with the HPV vaccine becomes incapable of naturally conceiving a healthy child carried to live birth or experiences impaired fertility as a result of the HPV vaccine".

Legislators got that idea because the vaccine contains Polysorbate 80, which is linked to infertility in mice. The Merck HPV vaccine also contains sodium borate which is a common roach killer in each of its three doses. The National Library of Medicine (NLM) of the National Institutes of Health notes of sodium borate that it "is now known to be a dangerous poison, it is no longer commonly used in medical preparations." That was published in 2005. Yet the FDA in 2006 approved the Merck vaccine with this "dangerous poison" to be "commonly used" in these vaccinations. The symptoms of sodium borate poisoning according to the NLM citation include many of the side effects being reported after less than six months of the vaccine usage. These include convulsions, collapse, and seizures that include twitching of facial muscles, arms, hands, legs, and feet.

How many of these young women taking this vaccine will find out that they are barren 10 to 15 years down the road and what will their options be if they are forced to take this drug because of legislation mandates?

A recent study suggests that men who take the popular hair-loss drug, Propecia, may be at greater risk for prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is detected by a test called prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Propecia can alter the results of this test -- reducing the PSA values by up to 50%. "So a man in his 50s, taking this lifestyle drug, might get a result of 2, when it's really a 4, which is more alarming," says Claus Roehrborn, a urologic oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, and an author of the study.

In addition, taking the drug could lead to unnecessary biopsies, as doctors will often watch for a dramatic rise in PSA values from one test to the next -- with big jumps indicating the need for further testing. A man taking Propecia during his first test would have artificially low readings, so, in the event that he stopped taking the drug, his next test would falsely show a dramatic increase, leading to needless additional procedures.

The researchers recommend that, to be safe, those taking Propecia should double their tested PSA values.