|
Out of Order: Gift horses
January 2012
SHARING OPTIONS:
Here's Johnny! Okay, actually, it's
Randy. Nonetheless, I'm
back.
A few months ago, the editor and publishers of Drug Discovery News decided to dredge up
a chestnut from
the past and asked if I would be interested in contributing
editorially in 2012.
I'm not sure
why they asked me back—perhaps it has something
to do with the Mayan calendar—but I'm happy to share my thoughts with all and
sundry.
Truth be told, I've missed everyone—the ddn staff, of course, but also ddn's
readers. I always
enjoyed meeting you at conferences and hearing back from
you when I said something particularly inflammatory. At the risk of seriously
concerning Amy
and the gang, I look forward to being inflammatory again.
A few weeks back, I read an interesting
editorial in one of
the local newspapers. If I understood correctly, it seemed that the Ontario
Medical Association (OMA) was asking its members not to discuss non-Western
medicine with their patients—everything from traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)
to naturopathy, homeopathy to chiropractic—whether the member's
opinions were
positive or negative. The editorial was a decidedly vehement slam on this
policy by one of the OMA's members.
From his perspective, the policy was tantamount to
practicing bad medicine, and given his tone, it seemed he felt it
might have
bordered on Hippocratic heresy. To him, any effort to keep him from squashing
any patient's interest in non-Western medical practices was
the equivalent of
putting his patients directly in harm's way.
In fairness, I should disclaim that I
have been a patient of
TCM, naturopathy and chiropractic when I have felt that Western medicine has
failed to address my ailments, and feel that I have
had success with some of
these practices. Much like the pharmaceutical and medical practices routinely
discussed in this news magazine, I have found
these other practices largely hit
and miss.
That some Ontario medical practitioners questioned
the value
of non-Western practices was not surprising. That there was such venom in the
response, however, did catch me off guard. And it got me
wondering about the
black curtain that veils these methods.
A quick Google search for the phrase
"outcomes-based medicine"
yields results in the tens of thousands. When you look at a lot of these
results, however, the focus is on scientific
method and not, ironically, on
outcomes—which is the point of medicine, isn't it? If you think about it, does
it really matter to the patient who is
seeing no benefit from a given drug or
treatment that 72 percent of patients in a clinical trial did see a benefit
over the comparator? If the desired
outcome is an improvement in the patient's
disease symptoms (or even better, in his disease state), then I'd say no. This
patient is seeing no
benefit from all of those (possibly) carefully crafted
clinical trials.
I'm not advocating that
we totally throw caution to the
wind. But I don't think we need to necessarily throw the non-Western baby out
with the non-FDA-approved bathwater. Many of these other practices have been
around for
centuries, if not millennia, and have been sufficiently effective in
large enough patient populations to have lasted this long.
In the past, the
pharmaceutical industry has figured out how
to make money from tree barks and saps, citrus mold and the delicate
complexions of milkmaids. Surely we
can figure out how to take advantage of
this untapped knowledge—and unlike most natural products research, which has
seemed to me to be founded on pure
serendipity (not that I have a problem with
serendipity), these areas of exploration have some real-world evidence to
support them.
Given the regular, seemingly cyclical challenges the
pharmaceutical industry has in coming up with the next
generation of
blockbusters based on the last generation of blockbusters, or in redefining
blockbuster so that it refers to a drug that only
significantly impacts
left-handed construction workers with the TBD2 allele, where is the harm in
throwing some of these tinctures and tablets into a
little acetone and sloshing
them across an HPLC? Or in analyzing extracts against animal or in-vitro models of various human
diseases?
The only thing that's keeping these centuries of anecdotal
data from becoming evidence-based medicine
is … well, evidence. Rather than
disregard all of this information because it wasn't officially sanctioned by
bodies like the FDA or wasn't the
result of carefully designed clinical trials,
maybe the first step in the screening process for potential new drugs should be
a simple question of what
have the "neighbors" been doing for 400 years to deal
with a given condition.
There are no
guarantees that any of this research would
amount to anything meaningful, let alone lucrative. But then, how much of the
work that is going on today
comes with guarantees? Can we realistically expect
a 100-percent success rate from replacing a hydroxyl with a methyl group on the
3-carbon of a benzyl
side chain of an antibiotic that stopped working last year?
Or the co-administration of an antiemetic with a new platinum-based oncology
drug to deal
with a particularly onerous side effect?
I'm not advocating that we cease doing medicinal
chemistry
or adjusting the clinical practice guidelines. I'm just saying that maybe we
should stop looking these potential gift horses in the mouth.
To mix my
metaphors, they may be a red herring, but herring is a good omega-3 source.
Formerly the executive
editor of ddn, Willis has worked at both ends of the pharmaceutical industry,
from basic research to marketing, and
has written about biomedical science for
almost two decades. Back |
Home |
FAQs |
Search |
Submit News Release |
Site Map |
About Us |
Advertising |
Resources |
Contact Us |
Terms & Conditions |
Privacy Policy
|