Metoprolol vision changes? Or is this something else? Graying out of vision in one eye only

pellicle · Aug 22, 2024

vitdoc said:
The construction of the study is to maximize a positive outcome. So improving the warfarin side of the study with rigorous self testing when be counterproductive in terms of showing the new drug’s advantages.

well I can't see how this shapes up any more than "Drug Companies are self interested (understandable) and not interested in improving the outcomes of other drugs" ... its just when they pick levels of compliance that are lower than "the bar" set by clinics apparently to just lower the bar against which their product is compare you have to ask why.
Asking why isn't a bad thing. Its a free market and an informed buyer should know what they are buying.

Protimenow · Aug 22, 2024

A well designed study of oral anticoagulants doesn't necessarily have to include warfarin in its study design.

There is probably a wealth of studies, many that have been extremely well peer reviewed, not to mention the studies that were run when Coumadin was submitted to the FDA for approval; plus probably decades of anecdotal follow-up reports regarding coumadin/warfarin as an anticoagulant, that there shouldn't be any need to do yet another set of studies of warfarin. Sure, testing is very expensive. Sure, the drug companies want studies that show that their drugs a) work, and b) are better than any alternative, but they're still stuck with the results of studies of alternative medications.

For my money, let these greedy companies convince the doctors that their high priced alternatives are better than warfarin for patients with aFib or other things that need anticoagulation (and still make it known that warfarin is a safer (?), less expensive, easily reversed alternative).

Drug companies want to get good returns on their investments on new medications - but this shouldn't be done to the exclusion of what's already out there. (Some of them are creating 'new' drugs by putting one or more generics into the same 'drug' and calling it 'new.' I don't want to name any specifically, but they're easy to find. One doctor gave me an inhaler that combined the ingredients of two OTC inhalers, and wanted $600 for something that would have cost about $20 or so over the counter).

pellicle · Aug 22, 2024

Protimenow said:
A well designed study of oral anticoagulants doesn't necessarily have to include warfarin in its study design

It does if it's trying to get in on territory where warfarin is the only approved option.

joel1947 · Sep 1, 2024

dornole said:
Had follow up with neurologist today for the amarosis fugax. He underlined that this was a TIA, that it was likely valve related and that I should be anti coagulated indefinitely. For future forum miners yes, this specific vision pattern with vision obscured and / or retuning like a window shade is “classic” for amaurosis fugax / retinal TIA and an emergency.

I also had a classic on my right eye. Never had it again, and that was 9 years ago. I do take low dose aspirin every day and have a bovine airtic valve installed in 2014. My cholesterol has always been quite low with good HDL. I just had an angiogram just to see how things are holding up and everything is good. I am not at all sure the FUgax had anything to do with the valve. I wish you well and hope it doesnt happen again.

joel1947 · Sep 1, 2024

Protimenow said:
A well designed study of oral anticoagulants doesn't necessarily have to include warfarin in its study design.

There is probably a wealth of studies, many that have been extremely well peer reviewed, not to mention the studies that were run when Coumadin was submitted to the FDA for approval; plus probably decades of anecdotal follow-up reports regarding coumadin/warfarin as an anticoagulant, that there shouldn't be any need to do yet another set of studies of warfarin. Sure, testing is very expensive. Sure, the drug companies want studies that show that their drugs a) work, and b) are better than any alternative, but they're still stuck with the results of studies of alternative medications.

For my money, let these greedy companies convince the doctors that their high priced alternatives are better than warfarin for patients with aFib or other things that need anticoagulation (and still make it known that warfarin is a safer (?), less expensive, easily reversed alternative).

Drug companies want to get good returns on their investments on new medications - but this shouldn't be done to the exclusion of what's already out there. (Some of them are creating 'new' drugs by putting one or more generics into the same 'drug' and calling it 'new.' I don't want to name any specifically, but they're easy to find. One doctor gave me an inhaler that combined the ingredients of two OTC inhalers, and wanted $600 for something that would have cost about $20 or so over the counter).

When the government employees retire to the pharma industry anything can happen. Often, when a drug goes off patent they can just make it time release so you take one a day insted of twice a day and the patent clock resets. Or as you mention take two common meds, put them in one pill and patent it. Sure it is easier to take one tablet a day, rather than two, twice a day, but it isn't that much easier.

Protimenow · Sep 2, 2024

Ease has nothing to do with it, as far as I can tell. Just put a few generics together (I think this is what Trelegy has done), and call it a new medication, charging a lot of money for what is really a few generics. Add some stuff that makes it time release, and it's a new medication that they can then charge a lot for.

Consumers should (but don't) look for these scams (okay, not technically scams, but they sure smell like they are) and consider checking out - and maybe using - the components. Although it's more trouble to take two or three of the component medications, saving hundreds of dollars a month - potentially - may be enough motivation to go to the trouble.