What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 

Jun. 14 2010 - 2:21 pm | 2,042 views | 0 recommendations | 5 comments

Getting Cancer from Blood Pressure Medication

Drugs for blood pressure are widely prescribed and considered to be safe—life-saving even, in many cases. So it’s unnerving to learn that these same drugs could increase the risk of getting  cancer. A new study  meta-analyzed nine published studies of blood pressure drugs known as angiotesin-receptor blockers and found they were linked to a “modest but significant” increase in the risk of new cancer, according to Dr. Ilke Sipahi and colleagues at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. The drugs include Novartis’ Diovan and Merck’s Cozaar among others.  The results were published in the medical journal The Lancet Oncology, which also reported there was no increased risk of dying of cancer. The risk is just getting it, not dying from it, apparently, but that’s also not particularly reassuring.

Further unnerving is that the study comes on the heels of the FDA saying it was looking at data from two clinical trials where patients with Type 2 diabetes taking the the blood pressure medication Benicar had a higher rate of death from cardiovascular problems compared to patients taking a placebo.

This kind of information is insanely confusing for patients. First, there’s the increased risk of new cancer but then, wait,  no increased risk of dying.  But maybe there’s a problem with death from heart problems? What?? Yet untreated high blood pressure can lead to lots of serious health problems, ones that do, indeed, increase your risk of dying. It affects about one in three adults in the United States and is believed to be a precursor to heart disease and stroke, the first and third leading causes of death in the country.

ABC News reported today that there has been a lot of noise from doctors and researchers saying the study in the Lancet is flawed. Dr. Henry Blackof NYU’s School of Medicine told ABC:

The follow-up in the nine studies was so short that “the most you could blame a drug for in such short studies would be that it ‘unmasked’ a cancer that was already present.” Also missing from the analysis, he said, was a plausible biological mechanism by which the drugs could cause cancer.

The Wall Street Journal reported that  “much of the data in the new analysis was from use of the drug telmisartan, sold under the brand Micardis by Boehringer Ingelheim.”  That company told the journals that it had done a comprehensive internal safety data analysis of the data and it contradicted the Lancet study’s conclusions. The company said its drug

has been studied in clinical trials in more than 50,000 patients, and has a positive safety profile.

So what are consumers to do? In a commentary with the Lancet study, Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, advised the obvious: exercising caution when prescribing and using those now-suspect medications.  But his commentary raised another really crucial issue—the over-prescribing of drugs because of aggressive marketing to consumers. The Lancet study may not be aimed at that, but it’s one reason why too many people take medication they may not need—or may not need yet.

Earlier this month, in fact, two groups critical of drug companies’ aggressive marketing and the lack of reporting about harmful side effects released humorous, but biting, campaigns to fight back. The healthcare advocacy group Community Catalyst released its “Bitter Pill Awards.” The Consumers Union released a satirical audio and animate video called “The Drugs I Need” on its website PrescriptionForChange.org.  Community Catalyst awarded the “Performance Anxiety Award for Exploitation of Male Fears of Inadequacy” to Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Schering-Plough for their blockbuster drugs Viagra, Cialis and Levitra.  The company cited commercials that pander to unrealistic fantasy—like one featuring a couple of seniors reigniting their passion in a pair of bath tubs overlooking wine country. (Can you think of anything less sexy?)

“We’re intending to shine a light on what we think are some irresponsible practices,” Alex Sugerman-Brozan, director of the Community Catalyst’s Prescription Access Litigation Project, told the WSJ’s MarketWatch.

He was outraged at an awards presentation made by DTC Perspectives Magazine during a–what else?–national direct-to-consumer ad conference in March.

“Is there an award for finding the most people who have undiagnosed hypertension and treating them with a diuretic, which is the most cost-effective? I don’t think so,” Sugarman was quoted as saying in MarketWatch. “Is there an award for educating people so they understand the greatest determinant of heart disease has to do with the choices they make about diet, exercise and smoking? No, the award is for selling more drugs.”


Comments

5 Total Comments
Post your comment »
 
  1. collapse expand

    Ms. Zimmerman,

    The simple fact of the matter is that there are no silver bullets out there. Drug that treat one problem can cause others (i.e. side-effects). Aspirin reduces fevers and relieves pain but it thins the blood.

    Selenium is a poison at some doses, at other doses it is an important nutrient, and it is a treatment for arsenic poisoning at doses that would otherwise be poisonous if selenium were not present.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637401/

    Cancer is often treated with radiation, which is carcinogenic. I knew someone who had a severe case of cancer based in the bone marrow, I am pretty sure it was leukemia. The only treatment was to give a massive dose of radiation to kill all of the bone marrow and the bone marrow was replaced with a transplant. However this person was told, the radiation dose was so high that it would likely cause cancer, a different cancer, in the future. Sure enough she lived more than ten years but did develop a cancer.

    It was a tough choice, die of leukemia now but have the threat of other cancers later. It is important to note, induction times for cancers are in the 10 – 30 year range.

    In studies cited, to do a prospective cancer mortality study would take decades. People could develop cancers but they are benign, they can become malignant but treatable, or they can be fatal (to identify but three possible outcomes).

    Now I am not arguing that drug companies should not follow all due diligence in identifying side-effects and make customers / patients aware of them. There has been too much rushing drugs on to the market and probably too much marketing of prescription drugs to people who may not really need them.

    My point however is that medicine and public health are never neat and clean. They are messy professions with lots of tough choices.

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook
 

My T/S Activity Feed

 
     

    About Me

    I'm a freelance journalist based in San Diego, Calif. I do a lot of business writing but also write about education, family life, social issues and politics. I have an interest in companies doing innovative work in science and technology. Over the years my work has been published in a variety of national publications, including The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Christian Science Monitor, Self, Glamour, Psychology Today, CNNMoney.com, FORTUNE Small Business Magazine, Slate.com, Salon.com and others. I write a monthly column in the Sunday New York Times Business section called "Career Couch."

    See my profile »
    Followers: 31
    Contributor Since: July 2009
    Location:San Diego, Calif.

    What I'm Up To

    www.takingmyownadvice.com