Even though the results are barely statistically significant, any whiff of the Big "C" (cancer) -- when linked to a widely-prescribed drug -- will make for headlines. This weekend has been absolutely no exception.
As ever, Matt Herper (writing for Forbes) has performed a tremendous public service by spending his Sunday sourcing "on the record" pull-quotes from truly independent experts in the field -- to put some perspective on these puzzling results. Do go read all of his, but here is a snippet:
. . . .The new study, led by Ilke Sipahi of the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, tracked the incidence of cancer in five published studies involving a combined 61,000 patients where an ARB was compared to placebo. They found that 6% of the patients on placebo were diagnosed with cancer, compared to 7.2% of those who received one of the blood pressure drugs. The result was statistically significant. The study is being published online in Lancet Oncology. . . .
James Stein of the University of Wisconsin-Madison said that the result was only barely statistically significant, and could be due to the fact that patients on ARBs lived longer and were more likely to get diagnosed with cancer. Moreover, there is no known biological reason these drugs would increase cancer risk.
The article raises "more questions than answers," says Harlan Krumholz, a Yale cardiologist and epidemiologist who is frequently at the forefront of drug safety debates. . . .
"In situations like this, people just have to decide if they can tolerate the uncertainty with these drugs, or want to move to others that have a different set of issues," Krumholz says. . . .
Really a one-two punch, though -- delivered to ARBs, as a class -- given the elevated CV risk-level news, out Friday. I'll keep you posted.
No comments:
Post a Comment