It’s only Wednesday, and so far three patients have come to their office visits carrying Cynthia Gorney’s article from Sunday’s New York Times entitled “The Estrogen Dilemma.”
The article explores the stories of three women who found relief from perimenopausal symptoms by using hormone replacement, framing the discussion in the larger context of what is being called the “window hypothesis” — the idea that starting estrogen replacement in the perimenopause and continuing it into later life may be neuroprotective and even cardioprotective, in contrast to beginning its use 10 or more years after menopause, where it can trigger heart disease, stroke and dementia. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The Blog that Ate Manhattan*
Just when you thought it was safe…now there is another article in the NewYorkTimes about the pharmaceutical industry pushing hormones for post menopausal women. It is a long and somewhat “shocking” article about how women have been sold a bill of goods regarding estrogen and progesterone after menopause and Wyeth Pharmaceutical paying multimillion dollar claims for women who took hormones and developed breast cancer.
Let me say…don’t believe everything you read. As readers of EverythingHealth know, I am not a shill for big Pharma and have written critiques of their corporate tactics many times. But when it comes to Estrogen replacement it isn’t just doctors and Pharma pushing drugs on unsuspecting women.
The link between breast cancer and endometrial cancer and estrogen (ERT) has been open dialog for decades. The pharmaceutical companies have had it listed in their marketing literature and good physicians make it part of the risk/benefit discussion. I have never felt pushed to prescribe ERT when it was not indicated and good evidence remains about the benefits of female hormones for bone strength and symptom control. Patients should know that for every 10,000 women who take estrogen, 8 more cases of breast cancer are seen. Other factors influence breast cancer like smoking, radiation (excessive chest X-rays, cat scans or mammograms), alcohol etc etc etc. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at EverythingHealth*
On November 3, 2008 the US Supreme Court will hear opening arguments in the Wyeth vs. Levine case. This highly publicized lawsuit has been discussed by the New York Times and the Journal of the American Medical Association and will likely be the most important case during the upcoming Supreme Court term. However, neither source has fully explained the unexpected consequences to the consumer if Wyeth loses.
To get to the bottom of the issue, I interviewed Bert Rein, attorney for Wyeth. Bert has conducted interviews with NPR and the three major TV news networks. Please enjoy this exclusive podcast interview here at Getting Better with Dr. Val, or read my summary of our conversation below.
Dr.Val: Bert, please summarize for our listeners what has happened so far in the Wyeth vs. Levine case.
Rein: Ms. Levine is a guitarist who suffers from migraine headaches and associated nausea. One day she sought pain management therapy at a clinic in northeast Vermont – the same clinic where she regularly received care. They elected to treat her with a combination of demerol (for pain) and phenergan (for nausea). They delivered the drugs intramuscularly, but several hours later Ms. Levine returned, complaining of an unrelieved migraine headache.
The clinic’s physician realized that the drugs would be more potent if they were injected intra-venously so he asked the PA (physician assistant) to give another dose of the drugs through Ms. Levine’s vein. Unfortunately, the PA inserted a butterfly needle (rather than the usual heplock for an IV) into what she thought was Ms. Levine’s vein, and delivered the phenergan into or near a punctured artery. Phenergan’s label clearly states that the drug can cause tissue necrosis if it comes in contact with arterial blood. Ms. Levine experienced a necrotic reaction to the medication which resulted in the eventual amputation of her arm. She sued the clinic for negligence and was awarded $700,000 dollars in a cash settlement.
Ms. Levine then brought a separate lawsuit against Wyeth, claiming that the phenergan label did not offer sufficient instructions about how to administer it safely, though the risks of necrosis from arterial blood exposure to phenergan are well known and labeled in capital letters as a warning on the drug’s label. Read more »