Evidence-based medicine…the Vioxx story

When Stefano got home from work last night, I told him about the FDA’s “avoid non toxic” warning, and he commented “that implies that everything that the FDA approves is toxic!” Eh!

Well, today I thought I would provide a sort of segue to yesterday’s tirade by discussing the Vioxx story and other related matters. Let me start off with an overview of evidence-based medicine…

 

1. The May 11 2008 Moss Report (see: http://tinyurl.com/3q8x2y) has an essay on the issue of so-called “evidence-based medicine.” This expression, Moss tells us, implies that medicine comes in two varieties – the kind that is based on a solid foundation of objective evidence, and the kind that is not. Because of the apparently stark good-versus-bad division it suggests, the phrase lends itself well to being used as a pejorative by those who are outspokenly opposed to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). To such people, anything other than standard conventional medicine is by definition unproven, speculative, founded on dubious premises and inherently inferior.

 

Okay, so “evidence-based medicine” is generally equated only with conventional treatments. But, and I found this very interesting!, Moss informs us that this was not at all the intended meaning of the term as it was originally conceived. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (EBMWG), a research collaborative of clinicians and epidemiologists from Ontario’s McMaster University, who first coined the phrase in 1992, were not attempting to draw a contrast between orthodox and unconventional medicine; far from it. They were in fact trying to change the medical profession’s entrenched tendency to cling, mainly out of habit, to procedures and treatments for which there was little if any solid evidence of effectiveness (EBMWG 1992). Aha!

 

In this utopian context, the medical experience of an individual (that of yours truly and of many blog readers and list members/friends) would not be dismissed as unproven or anecdotal…how many times have I been told that I am merely an interesting anecdote? Too many times to be counted…makes me smile, actually. On the contrary, in such a context, our results would be studied and compared to the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. Ah, were that the case…!

 

The “British Medical Journal,” Moss continues, had experts review 2500 commonly used treatments: of these, only 13 % were found to be definitely beneficial, 23 % likely to be beneficial, 8 % equally beneficial and harmful (!), but 46 % were rated as being of unknown effectiveness.

 

Almost half these treatments were of UNKNOWN EFFECTIVENESS? A mere 13% were BENEFICIAL? And this is “evidence-based medicine”!!! EEK! Since at first I wondered if the above-mentioned “treatments” referred to conventional CANCER treatments, I went to the “BMJ Clinical Evidence” website where I found out that no, the term refers to conventional treatments in general; ones, that is, tested in clinical trials for a variety of ailments, not just cancer.

 

The final part of the Moss essay is also interesting, so if you have a snippet of time please go check it out. It has to do with plugging individual cancer patients into so-called standard protocols that are designed mainly to make things easier for our doctors. But what about us, what about the cancer patients?

 

Just a quick comment. I remember my first haematologist (a very nice, gentle man who meant well) telling me that my chemotherapy regime would be “personalized”…I believed him then. But really, what he was suggesting was a standard myeloma drug, Velcade. There is nothing personal about Velcade, whose only variable could be dosage. Back then, though, I believed him (I have not had any chemotherapy thus far, by the way).

 

So let’s define these protocols by what they really are: standard treatments. Period.

 

2. Let’s go to item number two—the Vioxx story that I mentioned yesterday. The April 16 2008 edition of the British “Guardian” has an article about Merck, the well-known multinational drug company, that had hidden death rates caused by Vioxx, also known as rofecoxib, a painkiller of its manufacture. For many years. Merck provided the FDA only with selected data on deaths in its clinical trials, and failed to include people who had a fatal heart attack soon after coming off the drug. Oh, but the story gets “better”…

 

[…] papers published in journals on the results of Vioxx trials were ghostwritten by employees or contracted medical writers, and […] leading doctors were later invited to be named as authors. Financial links were sometimes but not always declared. So, basically you (=drug company) hire a medical writer to write a favourable clinical trial report extolling your newest bestest drug and then ask a couple of doctors to put their names on the report. Nice, huh?

 

The revelations about Merck’s scandalous, indeed criminal!, conduct were published in the “Journal of the American Medical Association” in April (see: http://tinyurl.com/4z6jch and http://tinyurl.com/4pga4h). Vioxx, by the way, was pulled from the market in September of 2004, the biggest market pull in history!, after reports of deaths, heart attacks and/or strokes. Merck officials knew of the risks, apparently as early as 1997, but did nothing until a clinical trial in 2004 showed an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. Merck knew. Did nothing…

 

This drug, like (I am sure!) many others, had no business being put on the market in the first place. Ah, but you see, it was a bestseller during the five years or so that it was on the market. Must have made Merck a bit more than a pretty penny, don’t you think? Speaking of pennies. Last November Merck settled with $ 4.85 billion the thousands of Vioxx lawsuits that involved 47,000 people. Take a look at the New York Times article on the settlement: http://tinyurl.com/4ajxrc. Appalling.

 

And, by the way, the practice of hiring folks to write up fake clinical trial results (etc.)—ghostwriting—is apparently widespread, as we can read in this April 16 2008 New York Times article: http://tinyurl.com/5ydl2u.

 

Evidence-based medicine. I’d say this is evidence that some or most or all drug companies are about as trustworthy as little kids caught with their hands inside the cookie jar…

 

P.S. According to a long 2006 report (see link below), Merck’s top management lost no sleep whatsoever over the Vioxx disaster, and in fact would be happy to see Vioxx put back on the market (!). Oh, and the FDA apparently knew about the problems caused by this drug as early as 1999 (the proof is in a 1999 memo). Shameful. See: http://tinyurl.com/4lsv5j 

Medicine is no longer about health, it’s about market share and profits.

Big Brother

A blog reader (thank you!) sent me some interesting info and links about warnings issued recently by the FDA (= Food and Drug Administration) to 23 companies and 2 individuals promoting various unproven cancer treatments that falsely claim to cure, treat or prevent cancer (see: http://tinyurl.com/3o89hf). I found this all so interesting and maddening at the same time that I wrote about ten pages of comments and denunciations…then did some drastic editing so I wouldn’t bore you all to tears.wink smiley What follows is what is left over from my drastic bit of chopping (so I hope it makes sense!).

 

The following link takes you to an FDA page titled “125 fake cancer cures consumers should avoid”: http://tinyurl.com/5hfj6e. I became exceedingly concerned when I saw that curcumin is listed here, too.

 

Now, I agree that, even though curcumin inhibits Notch signalling (important for the well-being of cancer stem cells) etc., it will not “cure” cancer, not by itself at any rate. As far as myeloma is concerned, we have to eradicate the myeloma stem cells to achieve a cure, and that, I am afraid, is not in the immediate future.

 

So curcumin may not be a cure, but in my particular case (I could also cite dozens of other curcumin-taking cancer patients whose results have been even better than mine!) it has kept my myeloma inactive and stable for more than two years…not to speak of how much I have benefited from more than a few unexpected side effects: cholesterol decrease, no more infections, aches or pains, etc. etc. etc.!

 

No, I was not at all pleased to find curcumin mentioned on this page in the same breath as “fake.”

 

http://tinyurl.com/67fz7n: this FDA page is titled “Beware of Online Cancer Fraud” and contains some valid suggestions, for instance how to protect ourselves from fraudulent cancer-curing online claims. Run in the opposite direction if you read sentences such as “treats all forms of cancer,” “skin cancers disappear” and so on. I too have come across some blatantly false, even absurd, cures for cancer online…and I for one would be very glad to see these types of websites disappear into the huge cyberspace rubbish bin.

 

However, scrolling down this particular FDA page to “Red flags,” I had a bone to pick with the warning against anything that claims to be “non-toxic.” Now, why should “non-toxic” be considered to be a “red flag” as a general rule if, and I repeat IF!, there are scientific studies to support such a claim for a certain substance?

 

Let’s take curcumin, for instance. Every single scientific study that I have read so far classifies curcumin as “non-toxic.” Therefore, based on the FDA red flag warning, I should avoid taking it… right? Does that make any sense? No, thought not. This business totally irritated me, and even the fact that Italy won against France last night didn’t mollify me.

 

A June 17 Bloomberg article (see http://tinyurl.com/6c24mu) provides an overview of the recent FDA activity. A few sentences in particular struck me: Regulators are concerned that patients could suffer side effects or forgo treatments that work, said Michael Levy, director of the FDA’s division of new drugs and labeling compliance. And, he continues, the FDA is very concerned that consumers will purchase these products from the Internet and use them instead of products that have been proven safe and effective. “Proven safe and effective”? Wait a sec. What the heck does that mean?

 

Hmmm, let’s see…if I got it right, according to the FDA it’s okay to take something that might harm or poison or even kill us if we fall within the small percentage of folks who have a reaction to an approved and allegedly “safe” FDA drug (shall I tell you the FDA-approved Vioxx story?), but it’s not okay to take something that has been used by folks for centuries and that has zero toxic side effects? I see…

 

In sum, I would like to state that I agree with the FDA that there are a lot of bogus online claims peddling miraculous cures for cancer. I have read some of ‘em myself. So if you come across a substance that sounds intriguing, please make sure it is backed up by scientific studies (the NCBI website can be very helpful in that sense: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/).

 

At the same time, I am concerned that curcumin is mentioned on an FDA no-no list. I am afraid that that might scare people off, people who instead might benefit from taking curcumin. I hope that won’t happen.

 

It’s easy enough to sift through and separate the good information on Internet from the bad. If there is no scientific support for a product/substance, I don’t even take a second look at it. Period.

Tests and games

Just a quick post today because Italy is playing against France this evening…the European soccer championship, you know…and I am too excited and worried to do any research. I suppose you can guess which flag I will be waving…wink smiley (and no, I don’t care for soccer or indeed sports in general, but when the Italian soccer team is playing I turn into a mad shrieking banshee…).

 

In answer to the questions concerning my osteoporosis tests, here are the ones that I took in April followed by the ones that my endocrinologist asked me to do next fall:

 

1. Calcium in the blood and urine; phosphorus in the urine (that was a lab mistake, it should have been a blood test); alkaline phosphatase; bone alkaline phosphatase; parathyroid hormone; creatinine in the blood and urine; creatinine clearance; pyridinoline.

 

2. In addition to the above, I will have the following tests done in the fall: phosphorus in the blood; vitamin D (25-OH); calcium ion. She also ordered a femoral and lumbar MOC, the abbreviation for Mineralometria Ossea Computerizzata, similar to a bone mineral density test but more comprehensive, from what I read online.

 

I think that is it. Oh, by the way, my official diagnosis is “hyperparathyroidism of uncertain origin.” (Remind you of anything? wink smiley ) That is why my endocrinologist wants me to suspend my intake of vitamin D until the fall. If I don’t do so, she won’t be able to figure out the cause of my elevated parathyroid hormone.Forza Azzurri!!!  

 

Okay, enough about tests and whatnot, I need to focus on this evening’s soccer game:
Forza Azzurri!!!

Well-equipped…

On Sherlock’s wise recommendation, my most recent set of tests (April) included a set of osteoporosis ones. I have two good reasons to be on top of my bone health: 1. my mother, who is almost 80 years old, has osteoporosis, and 2. as we know, myeloma weakens and damages the bones, causing bone pain, fractures and hypercalcemia (too much calcium in the blood due to bone destruction). Bone pain, in fact, is the most common symptom of myeloma at the time of diagnosis.

Well, those results were all within normal limits except for one: my parathyroid hormone levels, paratormone in Italian, were a bit on the high side. Para-whaaat? I had to look this up online. Never heard of it before.

 

The parathyroid glands are four tiny glands located in the neck. As I learned from an excellent website (http://tinyurl.com/68x78n), they have nothing to do with the thyroid gland except for location: Parathyroid glands are small glands of the endocrine system which are located in the neck behind the thyroid. The thyroid gland controls body metabolism whereas the parathyroid glands control body calcium and phosphorus levels. These four glands produce the parathyroid hormone (PTH) whose only function is to control calcium levels in the blood. If our body calcium is low, the glands produce more PTH to raise calcium levels. If blood calcium levels rise, though, the glands decrease PTH production. This is the normal situation.

 

But sometimes one or more of the glands can develop a benign tumour that causes it/them to secrete more PTH than needed. Blood calcium consequently rises. This is called primary hyperparathyroidism. The risk of osteoporosis and fractures increases. This is not my case: my blood calcium is the lowest it has ever been.

 

Secondary hyperparathyroidism or SHPT is instead caused by long-term low levels of blood calcium. It is typical of people with chronic renal failure (again, not my case) or with vitamin D deficiency. Aha! That could well be my case, since SHPT blood tests show elevated parathyroid hormone levels but low or normal calcium levels.

 

Of course, I also checked Internet to see if there was a connection between hyperparathyroidism and myeloma. There is. This makes sense when you consider that one of the symptoms of myeloma is too much calcium in the blood, as we have seen. But usually, when myeloma patients’ parathyroid levels are high, so are their calcium levels. Not my case. So I was able to exclude myeloma as a cause for my overly active parathyroid glands.

 

Since I am not a medical doctor, though, at times my interpretation of test results requires confirmation. To make a long story short, I went to see an endocrinologist yesterday morning. I had never been to an endocrinologist. It turned out to be a very interesting visit.

 

She didn’t seem overly concerned about my highish parathyroid hormone result but told me that it could be caused by one of two things: a. lack of vitamin D (bingo!), or b. a batty gland that can be removed…surgically. Obviously, I hope option “a” turns out to be the correct one. So, what do I need to do? Easy peasy: stop taking vitamin D for 3-4 months and then have my tests repeated. If my parathyroid level increases, that would confirm a diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency. If not, then we will consider the whacky gland option.

 

The endocrinologist told me that, if she were in my situation, she would do exactly what I am doing–take curcumin etc. (how about that?!!!). She was very matter-of-fact and used very simple words to describe active myeloma as a form of (very very very bad!) osteoporosis that erodes the bone from within. While destroying the bone, it also prevents bone reformation. Nothing new to me, but I was impressed by her knowledge of this cancer.

 

She also told me that specialists, from haematologists to radiologists, tend to shut themselves inside their highly focused specialistic box and forget to peek outside that little box. She instead strongly believes that it is dangerous to forget that patients may have other things going on that affect their general state of health and that could also be affecting the specific condition under treatment—myeloma or whatnot. She said that we must take care of health issues before they turn into problems instead of waiting until it’s too late. Of course, that is not always possible, but in my case it is because I was diagnosed early.

 

She told me that we should be “well-equipped” in case my myeloma becomes active some day. I certainly didn’t argue with that!

 

She also highlighted the importance of physical activity, so I see many walks and treks in my future Smiley face. Stefano and I are now planning our summer holiday that will include at least one natural reserve. Wherever we decide to go, it will be near a park with heaps of nature trails.

 

In conclusion, I would like to recommend…indeed, highly recommend!…that every myeloma patient go to an endocrinologist and have bone-related tests. Take care of your bones to prevent possible future problems. Of course, those of us who are lucky to be asymptomatic hope to remain so and never develop any of the problems related to this cancer. But…just in case…!!!

The Bathtub Test

During a visit to the mental asylum, a visitor asked the Director: “How do you determine if a patient should be institutionalized?”

 

Well,” said the Director, “we fill up a bathtub, then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub.”

 

“Oh, I understand,” said the visitor. “a normal person would use the bucket because it’s bigger than the spoon or the teacup.”

 

“No,” said the Director, “a normal person would pull the plug. Do you want a bed near the window?”

 

(I bet you chose the bucket, didn’t you? Hehe…by the way, thanks so much, Beth, for sending this to me! My parents and I howled for at least five minutes!)

The thunder of God

My parents arrived safe and sound earlier this afternoon. After the long flight from Boston to Florence (via Zurich), though, they needed a rest. The cats are resting with them (sooo cute!), so I thought I would quickly check my messages and write a brief post.

 

In the June 15 “Blood” Table of Contents I came across a study on parthenolide by Craig Jordan, Monica Guzman and the University of Rochester/University of Pennsylvania team. As you can read in the abstract (see: http://tinyurl.com/4v2re6), the team discovered not one but two (!) new agents, celastrol and 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal, that effectively eradicate AML at the bulk, progenitor, and stem cell level. Wowie!

I don’t have a lot of time now, and, besides, I don’t have access (yet) to the full study, but just for the heck of it I quickly looked up celastrol, which turns out to be an active antioxidant compound extracted from the root bark of a Chinese perennial plant called Tripterygium wilfordii Hook.f, or Thunder of God Vine“Thunder of God Vine.” (Don’t you love that name?)

You can read a bit more about it in this 2006 study published in “Cancer Research”: http://tinyurl.com/3l7js6 But, in a nutshell, it has been used for a long time in traditional Chinese medicine to treat inflammatory conditions. It is a proteasome inhibitor (like Velcade) but with no toxic side effects. As far as nude mice are concerned, at any rate! Interesting titbit: I read that its leaves and flowers are highly toxic. I suppose that rules out any possibility of making any thunderous cancer-stem-cell-killing tea, huh?

Well, still, a very exciting bit of news. And my parents are here to share it with me. Smiley face I have quite a bit of research in my future, that much is clear!

Busier than busy!

My parents are arriving here tomorrow from the U.S. (yippee!), so, as you can imagine, I am busier than busy these days. No time to post, answer e-mails, nada de nada…please be patient. Things will get back to normal in a few days, once my parents have settled in and so on. At that point I will try to answer at least some of the messages I have received and do some research.

 

I have received some very interesting comments recently, so please check them out if, like moi!, you like to read blog comments (the easiest way to do that would be to scroll down this page all the way to the bottom and, on the right, you will find the heading “Recent Comments“ that lists the most recent comments).

 

For instance, my blog reader Roberto, who has MALT lymphoma, has a few suggestions on how to use feverfew. The important thing, he writes, is to use parts of the whole plant. I think I may try doing just that this summer. My parents are bringing me a parthenolide supplement, but the percentage of PTL is so low that I am not sure what good it will do, if any. If at the same time I drink feverfew tea made with my own feverfew plant, though…wouldn’t that give my myeloma cells a double whammy? (Wishful thinking!)

 

By the way, to answer Munjid’s question, feverfew is indeed related to chamomile. One of its earliest scientific names was Matricaria parthenoides, and the Latin name for chamomile is Matricaria recutita. They both belong to the chrysanthemum family (fancy that), from what I read. They look similar, but there are differences if you look closely. Stefano’s aunt explained to me the other day that feverfew, for instance, lacks chamomile’s protruding central disk (its centre is flat).

 

A blog reader privately sent me a question concerning white cell count and creatinine, but I seem to have deleted or lost that message by mistake. If you read this, please drop me a note again. Very sorry about that!

 

Ok, I must be off, it’s getting late!

An Italian discovery: IL-12 kills myeloma cells

Vittorio (grazie!; for info in Italian, please see http://mielomahelp.blogspot.com/) told me about an interesting discovery made recently by a team of Italian researchers at the Istituto G. Gaslini in Genoa: interleukin 12 or IL-12 inhibits the proliferation of multiple myeloma in two ways, as we will see below.

 

But first, what is IL-12? It’s a cytokine or a sort of hormone that is naturally produced by our body, On an Italian scientific website (http://tinyurl.com/3pggpf) I read that it is responsible for regular communication between cells and has various effects on the immune system. Among other things (I read elsewhere), it is closely linked to the activities of T cells and NK (natural killer) cells and also has anti-angiogenic effects.

 

A few years ago the same group of researchers demonstrated that B cells possess an IL-12 receptor consisting of two parts—part 1 and 2. This laid the basis for their most recent discovery, published in the May 12 2008 issue of “Blood” (see abstract: http://tinyurl.com/58mu5u): part 2 is absent in B-cell lymphomas and leukaemias. Aha! And, get this!, cancer cells proliferate in the absence of part 2.

 

In order to demonstrate the direct relationship between IL-12 and tumour progression, the Genoa researchers examined cells taken from myeloma patients and tumour cells injected into mice without immune systems. Their tests showed, and I would like to highlight FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER!, that IL-12 strongly (!) inhibits myeloma progression: 1. it blocks the process of angiogenesis (that is, the formation of blood vessels that feed tumours) and 2., yippee!, it also induces the apoptosis (programmed cell death) of myeloma cells.

 

I don’t know what the next step will be, but it seems that the point would be to reintroduce that missing bit of IL-12 (that is, part 2) somehow…if at all possible. This may not turn out to be a “cure” for myeloma (I found no mention of its ability to target myeloma stem cells…), but, if it can kill some of the blasted circulating cells, well, that would be a good starting point…

TA!

Auguri a Stefano!

Tantissimi auguri di buon compleanno all’uomo straordinario che ho avuto la grande fortuna di incontrare, che dopo tanti anni è ancora capace di sorprendermi e di conquistarmi e che mi ha portato a vedere i pulcinella di mare (soprattutto! Smiley face). Lo sai che non sono per niente brava con le smancerie e così, oggi che compi 45 anni, ti dico semplicemente che…

 

ti amo (anche più di quanto non ami i nostri gatti!)!

The same in English…

As some of you know, I teach English in a company based in Florence, Italy. My students, divided into four small groups (different levels of English), frequently come up with the funniest stuff. In fact, I should really write a book about this experience…hmmm…

At any rate, the other day I was going over how we say numbers in English with my pre-intermediate class, a group of three cheerful chirpy women who are always ready for a good laugh. At one point we got to the number “one hundred thousand.” In Italian, one hundred is cento and one thousand is mille. One hundred thousand is the combination of those two numbers = centomila. As it is in English.

 

I asked M., the company accountant, if she would read that number in English, but she looked at me blankly and groaned: “ora non mi viene” (=“I can’t remember how to say it now”).

 

I asked: “Okay, let’s see, what’s that number in Italian?”

 

She answered straight away: “Centomila.”

 

“Well, it’s the same in English!,” I said encouragingly.

 

She smothered a grin and answered, “Ah, then: centomila!”