We’ve been getting a lot of propaganda in the news about why docs should be using X medicine (an old one that works just as well) instead of Y medicine (a new one that costs a lot more).
Heh. Lots of us have used both medicines, and a lot of us rely on our clinical experience to guide our care, not on “metanalysis” type studies that combine several studies (that often have a bias) to prove a point.
The implication behind a lot of these articles is that doctors are mindless zombies who read advertisements and obediently prescribe these medicines (earth to outerspace: I never read those fancy ads in the medical journals, and most of us take the drug salemen information with a grain of salt).
You know, sometimes the cheaper medicines work as well, but sometimes we use the fancy newer drugs for a reason.
Take the study that insists doctors treating high blood pressure need to start with the thiazide diuretic as the first line medicine.
The real reason for this can be found in this article:
Our analysis indicates that there is a substantial potential for savings if thiazides were used as first-choice drugs in the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension. …. In the US, for instance, the potential drug cost savings may be over US$1 billion.
So why do docs insist on using the more expensive Calcium channel blockers (e.g.Amlodipine) or ACE inhibitors (e.g. Lisinopril or the ACE2/ARB types e.g. Losartan)?
It’s the side effects, stupid.
Even the above study found that 20-30% of folks stopped using the diuretic.
Dr. Davis’ article here has the “bad news” about side effects. Thiazide diuretics result in Potassium loss, leaving some folks weak. They also raise your blood sugar and bad cholesterol levels a little bit. And they raise your uric acid level, meaning if you have gout, you might end up with more attacks.
But the dirty little secret why patients don’t like these medicines is that it makes some folks have to run to the bathroom more often: which can be a problem if you are in the mall or at the senior center and the bathroom has a line.
But for male patients, the reason we avoid it is this: impotence. Studies show that 3 to 30 percent of men are affected.
A recent scare article in the Huffpost by an author connected with a Health magazine does bring up some good points about the problems of mineral depletion by the thiazide diuretics.
these diuretics are also known to deplete other minerals, such as magnesium, sodium, potassium and zinc, which are seldom specifically supplemented. One study found hypokalemia (low potassium) in 8.5 percent of people treated with thiazide diuretics and hyponatremia (low sodium) in 13.7 percent in the same patient population.2,3) This indicates the importance of testing levels, and not simply restricting sodium…
She goes on and on, and of course recommends you take lots of supplements of vitamins and minerals which are probably advertized in her magazine.
Yet that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a point. Low potassium was a common problem with the higher doses used in the past, and continues to be a less serious problem. And low potassium makes one feel “as weak as a dishrag” (as one of my patients put it).
Yet for some patients (mildly obese patients with high blood pressure and fluid retention) they are the drug of choice.
And for many patients, a small dose helps bring down the blood pressure, so we often add it with our other blood pressure medicines.
And if you have congestive heart failure, they are a good choice, although we often use the stronger loop diuretics (e.g. Lasix/furosemide) in these cases.
In summary, take every “ain’t it awful” article with a grain of salt. (heh…salt increases blood pressure too).
Every medicine has side effects, so be skeptical of claims that treating mild cases of some disease saves lives.
Like most docs, I shuddered when drug companies pushed their “new” expensive pills directly to patients, when we docs knew the older ones worked fine (e.g. Vioxx, Celebrex work no better than Tylenol or Ibuprofen).
But now, with the government taking over health care, expect a push to use the older medicines for cost containment.
Now, when I was in private practice, few of my patients had insurance to cover medicines, so I am aware of the price problems. But sometimes a more expensive medicine is worth it.
————————–
Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines. She blogs at Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket.















5 users commented in " Old News on Old Cheap Medicines "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackNancy, this is somewhat unrelated to your article, but, what is your view on natural remedies and herbs? Thanks!
natural remedies, meaning a good diet, are good.
herbs work…but in the US they are not regulated, so you are never sure if one bottle is the same as the next.
And few herbal books agree with one another.
In contrast, in Germany, herbal medicines are common and regulated, and often prescribed by those who studied the herbs.
The main problem with herbs and those who use them is that they forget that herbs can also poison and have side effects. They think natural is the same as safe, which it is not.
Thanks for answering, I currently take herbs for this ailment and that. I agree in that herbs are not safe to take how you want when you want. I had taken some Gotu cola herb one time for increasing my circulation (I think that is what it was for, its been 3 years ago or so)and I was pregnant (though I didn’t know) and I am convinced that taking that herb along with some vitamin E ended up causing my early miscarriage. I now read several websites at a time on each herb I look up, but you are right, some sights are conflicting with information. I would love to see the day that we can use natural medicine to get well or physicians advising their patients with herbal remedies along with prescriptions.
On another note, I am surprised that you say herbs work. I ask almost every doctor I come in contact with what their opinion is on herbs and natural remedies. Most often I get the eyeroll : ) Thanks for your input!
Herbs work, but for a lot of ailments they don’t (garlic increases the immune system, but in the “good old days” one died of typhoid or scarlet fever, because no antibiotics).
And many have more side effects than modern medicines. So Osler, a physician 100 years ago, said we should throw out all our medicines except for Opium and we’d do our patients a lot of good.
examples of dangerous herbs include digitalis for the heart, rauwolfa root for hypertension…ephedra for colds and asthma worked, because some folks overused it and it made their blood pressure go up is the most recent example.
I wrote an essay about this on another blog, but never got around to editing it to place on BNN, but you might want to check out the link:
http://tioedong.xanga.com/731117503/dangerous-supplements/
Totally agree with some of what you say, but will deisagree with the dis’ing of Vioxx. Vioxx was excellent for acute pain management (not chronic arthritis) because of its rapid entry into the brain and spinal cord tissue. What ‘screwed the pooch’ on it was the greedy company Merck wanting everyone to use it every day for years. Used for a week, Vioxx was great and no probs with BP or stroke or heart attacks. Give it for years and it has the same problems as naprosyn and ibuprofen, but more severe. Yeah, the drug companies over-market and over-claim some of their stuff, but the Government and HMOs and insurance companies downplay the benefits of new drugs so they can directly pocket the savings themselves. Ya can’t trust anybody!
Leave A Reply