LYMEPOLICYWONK: Expired Drugs—Are they Effective, Safe?

Byldoadmin

The article concludes:

 

When no suitable alternative is available, outdated drugs may be effective, and there is no indication that they are not safe. There are no reports of toxicity from degradation products of currently available drugs. How much of their potency they retain varies with the drug, the lot and the storage conditions, especially humidity, but many drugs stored under reasonable conditions in their original unopened containers retain 90% of their potency for at least 5 years after the expiration date on the label, and sometimes much longer.

 

A copy of the article is here. 

 

You can follow other Lyme policy posts at lymepolicywonk.org.  You can contact Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA at lbjohnson@gmail.com.

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA explains why “evidence” is not necessary for “evidence-based guidelines”

    I suppose it was inevitable. The IDSA, due to inattention (hey, it happens with age), lack of oversight, control, or, shall we say, “iron fist” over its members, permits not one, but TWO poster sessions at its last annual meeting that point out that—drum roll—the IDSA guidelines across the board (not just Lyme guidelines) are just—well, not based on science or evidence for the most part. Thomas File, the author of this article, is on the board of the IDSA and he is with Summa Health System: He takes the IDSA defense and explains why evidence is not necessary for evidence based guidelines..

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Intellectual Conflicts of Interest–A New Way to Smell a Rat?

    Here’s an interesting approach to conflicts of interests offered by one of the fathers of evidence based medicine, Dr. Gordon Guyatt. The topic was guideline development and the interests of those serving on a guideline panel in having their pet theories and research promoted in the guidelines. Why is this important to researchers? It helps further the academic careers of researchers when their work is cited, referred to and used as the foundation for creating treatment guidelines. There is a dynamic tension between the use of expertise and the potential bias expertise may bring to the table. Those of us in the Lyme community are only too familiar with the fact that the IDSA guidelines were developed by academic researchers and that references to their own research dominate the guidelines. Being tied to a theory that your research has advanced creates a bias towards reinforcing that theory in the selection of evidence cited, the evaluation of that evidence, and the development of guideline recommendations that confirm that bias. Guyatt’s perspective is novel and interesting. In his mind the way to manage this bias is not to exclude the researchers from sitting on the guideline panel but to limit their ability to misuse their power to further their own ends. Hence, those with what he called a primary conflict of interest are precluded from chairing a guideline panel, drafting recommendations and voting on them and even the ranking of evidence. Read how he defines an intellectual conflict of interest and how he would restrict participation in guideline development by those with intellectual bias.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Artful Dodgers, 1,2,3 : the IDSA, the NIH and the IOM Makes Three

    What do Representatives Chris Smith and Frank Wolf have in common? They know how to ask the right people hard questions. What do the IDSA, the NIH, and the IOM have in common? They’ve honed the skill of the artful dodger. Representatives Smith and Wolf want to know why the NIH “stepped back” from its charge to run a state of the science conference and handed that hot potato to the IOM. One big difference between the NIH process and the IOM process? The NIH process considers bias a conflict of interest, meaning IDSA folks wouldn’t be sitting on an NIH panel. But, drum roll. . .the IOM permits panels to be biased and coincidentally has a panel that consists almost exclusively of IDSA folks, 4 of 6 panel members. Oh, and one more thing, the IOM is not technically considered to actually be ‘the government’. This is a picture perfect example of plausible deniability. The NIH didn’t stack a panel. The IOM did with IDSA folks. But, hey, they like bias and they are not accountable, are they? A copy of the letter from Representatives Smith and Wolf to Dr. Francis Collins of the NIH together with Collins response can be downloaded at the bottom of this blog post.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Patient Centered Research and Lyme—An idea whose time has come?

    A friend forwarded to me the audio link (at the end of this blog) of an interview with Dr. Iain Chalmers of the Cochrane Collaboration—a leading voice in evidence based medicine. Dr. Chalmers, who is interested in the patient perspective in evidence-based medicine, made a number of points that I think you will find of interest. First, he said, research agendas should be driven by patient concerns rather than by researchers’ preferences. There’s an interesting idea. Then he said that physicians have to make a decision today and cannot wait for the research. That sounds right, too. He went on to say that when you are looking at outcomes, the clinical experiences of those who receive the intervention or treatment are the key—these experiences are not the soft data, they are, in fact, the “hard” evidence. Finally, he noted the difficulty of getting “disappointing” results published. Disappointing results can be trials that don’t turn out as planned or that contradict what the researcher expected. His last quote regarding academic researchers in particular stuck with me and should resonate with the Lyme community: “If you have a cherished hypothesis which your career has ridden on for the past 20 years and someone does a really killer experiment which actually shows that you have been wrong all that time, the natural reaction, the human reaction is to say “there must be something wrong with it”—“I can’t have been wrong all these years”. It all sort of takes me back to the Embers monkey study and the complaints of Dr. Baker’s (formerly of the NIH and now the head of the American Lyme Disease Foundation, which many patients believe is a front for the Infectious Diseases Society of America).