One of the great scares of the new century is the constant threat of avian influenza. From 2005 onward, each new year brings strains of avian influenza into the pool of more common strains that are affecting the world population, creating a recombinant strain that has genetic material from now widespread avian flu strains worldwide.
Nevertheless, each year there seems to be a concerted effort to not only impress upon the general population to vaccinate, but also now, widespread campaigns to use medication such as Tamiflu or Relenza to treat suspected or confirmed avian strains, or just to shorten more common influenza cases. Whereas vaccination is still considered a valid method of stopping flu epidemic, the same cannot be said for the antivirals Tamiflu and Relenza.
But the problem with both Tamiflu and Relenza, just as occurred with amantadines, which are used en masse in Asia to raise chickens to avoid contraction of avian strains, is that their effectiveness, if it ever existed, is now waning to the point of being utterly useless.
In 2007, the last year when a major avian influenza virus made its debut worldwide, Tamiflu was considered a line of attack drug for the ensuing epidemic. Although the epidemic never materialized, the drug was routinely prescribed both as a preventer and as therapy for the strain.
But since then, Tamiflu has been routinely used by doctors to 'shorten' the flu symptoms, and has been widely publicized commercially for use will all types of influenza.
However, the question that arise from such intense use of the medications is whether such widespread adoption was prompted by the realization that the medication was not so effective as believe, or whether such widespread use has diminished its effectiveness.
But it goes to show how the commercial viability of a medication can corrupt its purpose. In 2007, Tamiflu was stocked in enormous amounts, together with vaccinations to offset a possible epidemic. Was the medication effective then, to prompt such a large cache to be acquired by the government? Or was the virus never as dangerous as first thought?
In fact, the medication is still stocked in large amounts by the US government, following guidelines from both the CDC and the WHO. Why then, are these two agencies recommending such acquisitions, if the effectiveness is in doubt? However, new evidence also shows that some of the recommendations made by the agencies come from analysis of the data offered by the medications' manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline.
New evidence on the antiviral medications Relenza and Tamiflu however, all but silences the discussion. When researchers in 2009 sought to establish the effectiveness of the drugs, they were stonewalled by the pharmaceutical company that manufactured it. That alone raised a red flag. And it raised questions on whether the drugs should be prescribed to children or even stockpiled.
A scandal in 2012 shed even greater light on the debate. The British Medical Journal put pressure on Roche, the company that makes Tamiflu, to release effectiveness data from the drug trial. After the release of the records, investigators were able to ascertain what occurred during the trials, which involved 24,000 people.
Although there was evidence of some effectiveness against influenza, that effectiveness was merely the reduction of the flu symptoms by only 12 hours compared to people who did not take the drugs, and no difference in children at all.
However, the drugs did show a 1% increase in psychotic episodes, something that was downplayed during the years of Tamiflu use.
More damning however, was the finding that in the trials, the medications failed to stop the complications that make influenza deadly, that is the pneumonia, bronchities and sinusities and other infections in both children and adults. It also did not prevent or diminish the hospitalization of the afflicted patients.
Evidence also shows, more ominously, that the medications actually hampered the human body's own immune response to fight the infection.
This has prompted the medical community to petition for revisions on the adoption of the drugs, due to lack of sufficient data that proves its effectiveness.
In the words of the British Medical Journal editors and other pertinent investigators, the system that should safeguard the patient from commecial interests and lack of information is utterly broken.
Op-Ed
Source : MNT
4.12.14
No comments:
Post a Comment