Discussions that mention atacand

High & Low Blood Pressure board


ARB's (DIOVAN/ATACAND/AVAPRO etc)and Calcium Channel Blockers (CARDIZEM/PROCARDIA etc..) are still being mentioned in many current news articles as increasing the chance for heart attacks. (Reported by some of the worlds most respected Medical Journals) These articles can be easily found.
The original article which appeared 2 years ago can be found on some previous threads. Research is concluding that the safest and most effective medications for life saving results are Diuretics and Beta Blockers and/or ACE INHIBITORS (CAPOTEN/ALTACE/ENALAPRIL/ACEON etc...)
Ace, :)

[QUOTE]ARB's (DIOVAN/ATACAND/AVAPRO etc)and Calcium Channel Blockers (CARDIZEM/PROCARDIA etc..) are still being mentioned in many current news articles as increasing the chance for heart attacks. (Reported by some of the worlds most respected Medical Journals)

Unfortunately you're right. :( Our doctors will keep prescribing this medication unless the FDA issues a warning or an alert regarding these possible adverse effects or takes an even more drastic action. Because nothing has been done in the years that have passed since the initial CCB controversy began, the chance of any intervention by the FDA is highly unlikely.

Much has been written in medical literature about the outcome and analysis of the study you mention and its many limitations. While it was indeed a very controversial issue at one time, much has changed. A post-hoc analysis of ALLHAT showed that, if anything, CCBs are safer and better tolerated than ACE inhibitors. (Personally, I have some doubts about that) .

Many other studies followed with the intention of setting the record straight either way. These subsequent studies managed to put an end to the controversy thanks to (supposedly) an overwhelming evidence showing the CCBs to be safe and effective. There are many doctors who remain unconvinced and have reservations about the safety of this group of medications. Some say it is unfair to attribute the increased frequency of adverse cardiovascular events to the entire class of CCBs because the drugs it consists of are completely different, thus the whole class should not be blamed for any possible shortcomings of a single drug belonging to it. Others say there had never been any problems with this class of medications to begin with. Meanwhile, what is one supposed to do? The beta blockers are not equivalent to the CCBs. They share certain characteristics, yet cannot completely replace the CCBs. It would be nice to have a SAFE alternative. One has to decide which is potentially the lesser evil (the risk-benefit ratio) - taking the medication or NOT taking it. I guess it is up to our doctors to make that judgement call. :)

flowergirl
According to the authors of the ARB study, 9 out of 11 rather large ARB trials showed no protection at all for MI and worse an increase of about 20% for ATACAND and DIOVAN (though there was some stroke prevention). In the majority of ACE trials (approx. 90%) MI risk was cut by about > 20% along with improvenments accross the entire spectrum for kidney protection, stroke and all cause mortality...

P.S. I'm also aware that many trials cannot be relied on. Statistics can easily be slanted. Research trials prefer to report only the positive information or the main trial goals. ex. If a trial was set up to determine the stroke risk for an ARB versus ATENOLOL, The trial will conclude by stating that the ARB cut the stroke risk by 18 % and improved quality of life. If the ARB did worse, they can choose to scrap the whole trial for other reasons etc.. Oh' and by the way, If ATENOLOL was shown to cut the heart failure and MI risk by 35% versus the ARB, that will never be mentioned or stated because that was not the purpose of trial. (The trial was set up to determine stroke prevention).
If the ARB proved to be better in any category ex. better vision, no weight gain etc... You can be sure the pharm.company would like that information mentioned and available for the "health and benefit" of the general public.
With the following statement "Though this research trial was not powered to test these concerns we found...... blah blah blah" If other information reveals negative information such as an increase risk of 45% for bladder and colon cancer. DO NOT REPORT OR MAKE AVAILABLE to the public. Besides, that is not what this research trial was powered for. TRUE HUMAN COMPASSION AND BUSINESS ETHICS (don't make me laugh)

Forgetting the ill will and unethical practices of the large pharmacopea...and percentages etc... I think we can at least conclude that several very sharp (ethical) researchers decided to review all pertinent data on both the ARB's and ACE's and determine if the medications are beneficial, prolong survival, decrease survival or do nothing at all. Their main purpose was to make the public aware that these drugs are not necessarily interchangeable and that all drug information which affects our lives should be known. (I strongly agree that we have a right to know all information about a pill) When the researchers concluded that almost every ARB trial had large numbers of heart attack's versus placebo (forgetting other classes of medications) I think it was clear that a placebo pill would have been much better to be taking if you had to participate in this trial..