Dear Ahmed,
I\'m unclear about the value of creating an anecdotal list of \"bad\"
drugs based on adverse effects we know nothing about because they are
hidden and un-reported.
This seems to be to straying into Wakefield territory. That is, a list
of adverse effects not based on evidence, with no proven causality.
What would of more use, as someone has already pointed out, would be a
database of \'drugs that are used badly in practice\'. These are drugs
that are used on a mass scale, but have well-known adverse effects that
health care professionals do not pay enough attention to.
If you look at the some of the drugs causing admissions to hospital...
aspirin
warfarin
bendrofluazide
frusemide
atenolol
diclofenac
digoxin
bumetanide
These account for a LARGE percentage of all drug-related admissions in a
robust study by a group in Liverpool, yet to published (this year
hopefully), then it is clear which drugs should be concentrated on. And
no, these drugs are not causing admissions sue to unreported or hidden
adverse effects.
Also, labelling certain drugs \"bad\" (without an appreciation of the
risk/benefit) is also simplistic, even thalidomide isn\'t all bad.
If you know of un-reported hidden adverse effects of \"bad drugs\" I
would suggest you immediately report them on a Yellow Card and exhort
your colleagues to do likewise, so that in future they are not
un-reported and hidden.
Either of these urls will take you to the electronic Yellow Card
http://www.yellowcard.gov.uk
http://www.yellowcard.org.uk
Trying to set up an alternative system for detecting rare ADRs when
there are experts at the MHRA and the WHO ADR monitoring centre who have
extremely sensitive methods of detecting ADR signals within large
datasets seems a pointless exercise. In fact, it is counterproductive
since you may divert valuable reports away from these systems.
Regards
--
Anthony Cox MRPharmS
http://blacktriangle.org
|