Controversial Arrhythmia Drug Provides Only Modest Efficacy and No Clear Safety Benefits
In a rigorous new review of the antiarrhythmic drug dronedarone (Multaq), researchers at the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute conclude that the controversial drug is only modestly effective and has no clear safety benefits. The review, to be published in the April 23 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, assessed data on dronedarone submitted during the drug's FDA approval process and determined that dronedarone is 50 percent less effective than amiodarone (Cordarone), a frequently used treatment for atrial fibrillation, a common type of heart rhythm disorder. (Embargo expired on 05-Apr-2010 at 17:00 ET)
Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 23-Apr-2010
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Not so safe or effective drugs...why do we take them?
Since I'm a quasi health journalist, I'm on a lot of wire services, etc., and see so many announcements like this go by. Why do we even take most drugs, I wonder? Also, atrial fibrillation (something that I have) is actually benign. I've learned to control it with stress reduction. My mother was put on drugs that made her hair fall out--for forty years--and she still gets palpitations, too. There you go: