I too have had escitalopram sales reps supply me with evidence that the
R-isomer is not inactive (the default position) but partially blocks the
active S-isomer.
This paradigm-changing stuff, isn't it? - a significant result that
overthrows the orthodoxy of stereochemistry - that the biological world
works only on L-isomers (see Martin Gardner's "The Ambidextrous Universe",
before L- was renamed to S-). But only IF it's valid.
So it's about assessing the quality of this evidence e.g. statistically, or
replicating the result, or discovering non-publication of negative results.
Our HB pharmacology adviser just shook his head wearily and declared that
"the jury is still out". Is it?
--
Colin Brown
-----Original Message-----
From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Midgley
Sent: 23 August 2007 00:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Escitalopram rule OK?
Declan Fox wrote:
> I quote this fascinating bit of neuro-transmitter research from some
> French journal, abstract on PubMed. It struck me because our health
> board prescribing advisers have tried to sink escitalopram, even going
> so far as the pre-emptive strike of directing us to prescribe it
> generically even though there won't be a generic along for a few years.
Prescribing it by drug name (and by isomer) seems a good idea,
regardless of the brands available.
The advisers are drug reps, really, but regulated less effectively.
Most of their output is spam.
--
A
|