Posted by Daveman on August 23, 2001, at 1:36:27
In reply to Re: that other thread » Elizabeth, posted by Cam W. on August 22, 2001, at 13:55:36
Cam:
Interesting. The thing I keep running up against is people claiming they "didn't know" about this effect or that. Whose fault is that, really? Full disclosure is part of the treating doctor's obligation, it seems to me. Each time my docs have started me on meds, they have told me about the possible side effects. I was told in very explicit terms that the SSRI's cause sexual disfunction. When I was started on Paxil, I was told of the side effects such as somnolence. With Celexa, I was cautioned I would experience nausea in the start-up. With Remeron, I was told I would probably gain weight. Each time, when this happened (and yes it all happened), I was prepared to deal with it. I also educated myself through sites such as this one, which was particulary helpful dealing with my fears of addiction when I was taking Xanax (it didn't happpen).
I'm rambling- what's my point? I guess it is that the information is out there, particularly regarding the SSRI's, pro and con. Doctors who don't choose to inform themselves thusly should not be prescribing these medications. Forewarned is forearmed.
Dave
> > But how do we provide an incentive for the drug companies to investigate possible bad effects of their products once the products have been approved for marketing?
> >
> • That's a good question. I do believe that even if drug companies are forthcoming with information, it will still be missed. For example, that Effexor withdrawl; I knew about the withdrawl in 1997, before an XR version was made. The company, since at least 1998 (perhaps before) had the withdrawl information in it's product monograph. I guess if you don't scream it out, not everyone listens (or has the time to read the monograph fully). It would be silly for a company (who really has to answer to shareholders) to point out the bad issues of their product. That's what competitors are for.
> >
> >
> > Even when it's below the therapeutic dose for psychosis? I was taking 2.5-5 mg/day.
> >
> • Pyschosis can be treated with low doses, as well. I don't think that there is an dose/effect gradient, as seen with Effexor.
>
> • I was talking to the Zyprexa rep yesterday (met him in Starbucks interviewing a new rep), and he says that the increased incidence of type II diabetes is only seen in patients with schizophrenia (he later amended that to be, that patients with schizophrenia were the only one's studied, so far). The reason he states that there increased numbers of people getting diabetes from taking Clozaril and Zyprexa is that people with schizophrenia are 4 times as likely as the general population to get diabetes. I asked if this number included unmedicated people and he didn't know. He also blamed increased appetite and poorer than normal dietary skills (eg chips & pop diets), as being risk factors. I really can't believe that we have a number of people with schizophrenia have borderline triglyceride levels and coincidentally become diabetic after starting these two atypical antipsychotics. I have seen people without schizophrenia become diabetic, but I am sorry that I never paid attention to relative numbers.
> >
>
>
> > Is Zyprexa really that common compared to Nardil?
>
> • Zyprexa is prescribed much more than Nardil and for numerous indications, at least here in the north. Nardil is used as a last resort in treatment-resistant depression. Zyprexa seems to be used before Nardil, even though there is little evidence of efficacy for it's long-term use in depression.
>
> - Cam
poster:Daveman
thread:67742
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010822/msgs/76074.html