MRSA infections in prisons on the rise
I have a special place in my heart for microbiology in general, and superbugs in particular. Ever since microbiology lab, I've loved playing with bacteria. In fact, I still have a urea agar slant vial that's a lovely shade of flourescent pink — thanks to proteus vulgaris — that I stoletook from lab. (They were just going to throw it away!) It was hanging from my rearview mirror in my car for a while, and now it sits on my desk, an old friend from a favorite class. It looks something like this, only the agar is translucent rather than opaque, and is quite pretty when it catches the sun just right. Maybe I'll take a picture of it one of these days. I'm surprised it's as vibrant pink as it is — it's quite old.
Alas, I'm showing my nerdy side. On with the real news…
MRSA is turning into a real problem in prisons. Not only for prisoners, but for guards as well. I've been watching this blog for a while, and following the comments therein. There's some scary stuff going on:
K Schacht Says:
Until recently I was employed as an part-time instructor in two of our local jails. I had been working just a few months when suddenly I began to not feel well, and then the symptons developed… which were misdiagnoised for several months. Finally, I was correctly diagnoised with MRSA, but six months later I’m still ill and the antibiotics are not working.
Yes, I’m mad and yes I do feel the jails have a culpability of informing and educating not only outside and inside staff, but the inmates as well.
I had no idea of this risk and was not informed at each jail orientations. The choice of exposure was not an option and the lack of information has prolonged and perhaps worsened my health.
Gardasil for all? Yes, please.
Just when I think I'm done writing about Gardasil for the time being — that nothing more can really be said — I read something new. This time it's an OB/GYN who thinks the best way to protect people is by vaccinating everyone — not just the girls. As someone who thinks the vaccine should be mandatory for the approved age ranges, I concur with the doc's opinion:
Dr. Bradley Monk, associate professor in gynecologic oncology at the University of California at Irvine, said the best use of the vaccine would include giving it to girls and boys and all women and men, regardless of their individual risk factors.
"We need to move toward a paradigm where this is a universal vaccine," he said in a commentary published in the latest issue of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
But some groups oppose requiring the shots for school attendance, saying parents should decide whether to immunize their children against a sexually transmitted virus.
Men can pass on the virus to their sexual partners, so it makes sense to vaccinate boys against HPV, and it would also protect them from genital warts, Monk said.
He likens getting the vaccine to wearing a seatbelt which seems like a pretty good analogy: just because you're wearing it, doesn't mean you're going to drive like a jerk. Just because you have the vaccine doesn't mean your child is going to go have unprotected sex with every partner that comes down the lane.
"To have a vaccine that prevents cancer and not use it would be one of the greatest tragedies," Monk said.
Quite right.
[tags]Gardasil, cancer, oncology, vaccine, HPV[/tags]
Gardasil gets approval in the EU
Gardasil seems to be Merck's new wunderkind; there's been more press over it than there has been coverage of the tiresome Vioxx lawsuits. Now they've gotten their HPV vaccine approved in the European Union:
Gardasil, the first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, was endorsed by a panel of European experts on Friday, bringing mass vaccination against the killer disease a step nearer.
[...]
Recommendations for marketing approval by the committee are normally endorsed by the European Commission within a couple of months.
See the Related Posts section for more, in case you've missed all the hot Gardasil action lately. I think once the Vioxx lawsuits are finished, we're going to see Merck do quite well for investors (and the general public) as their pipeline seems a bit more promising than most of their competitors.
[tags]Medicine, pharmacy, Gardasil, Merck, HPV, cancer, oncology[/tags]
An anti-smoking vaccine?
Lots of anti-smoking developments in the last 2-3 months. The approval of Chantix was pretty significant (still waiting to see how it works on in the real world in terms of insurers covering it, popularity, and anecdotal success rates), Sanofi-Aventis got Acomplia approved in Europe as a weight-loss drug, and now we've got tests of a vaccine that blocks the nicotine rush. It's called Nabi by NicVax.
Now the Madison man is among 300 people around the country who are testing an experimental vaccine that makes the immune system attack nicotine in much the same way it would fight a life-threatening germ.
The treatment keeps nicotine from reaching the brain, making smoking less pleasurable and theoretically, easier to give up. The small amount that still manages to get in helps to ease withdrawal, the main reason most quitters relapse.
Physicians score worse than consumers when it comes to generic drug knowledge
And both groups rank below pharmacists by a large margin.
I think this graph is very telling. (Thanks to John Mack from Pharma Marketing Blog.) Click it for a larger image.
The results are from Medco's 2006 Drug Trend Report. As one of the largest PBMs in the country, Medco is in a unique position publish statistical analysis of drug trends because their subscribers are from every conceivable demographic.
"The survey found that physicians trail consumers and pharmacists regarding their knowledge of and confidence in the safety and effectiveness of generic drugs which could have broad implications for the forthcoming boon in savings from the expected drug patent expirations of branded drugs worth over $40 billion in U.S. sales:
- "One quarter of the physicians surveyed stated that they do not believe generic medications to be chemically identical to their branded counterparts; more than 8 percent said they were unsure. This despite FDA rules that require generic versions of the drug be bioequivalent to the brand medication
- Nearly one in five physicians believes generic drugs are less safe than brand-name medications, and more than one in four doctors (27 percent) believe generic medications will cause more side effects than brands"
Just wonderful. It's true there are slight differences between brand and generics. Dyes, binders, and disintegrants may be slightly different, but these differences are usually negligible, to say nothing of potential side effects. After all, who is to say that the brand name drug's binders, disintegrants, and dyes are less likely to cause problems than the generic equivalent's? Answer: impossible to know without trying. Doh!
Now seems like a good time to link up my generic drug FAQ post.
More Part D shenanigans
I've talked about the Part D donut hole extensively. I've also talked about how the media is feeding on a frenzy of sob stories involving individuals who hit the doughnut hole earlier than they expected, through their own poor planning. These stories mostly revolve around someone taking an expensive medication (cancer meds, etc.) who burned through their benefit faster than they thought they would. These are the same people who were in love with the program earlier this year when it started saving them boatloads of money. Ironically, they're the same people who will love the program again in January.
For their sake and mine, I hope these people opt to change their Part D coverage to something without a doughnut hole in November — the beginning of the window where people can switch Part D PBMs. There's another prominent sob story in the media today:
David Madison, 67, of Lakewood, Colo., was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in May and fell into the coverage gap this month. One prescription eats up 20% of his $34,000 annual income. "I really don't know where the money's going to come from," he told a Democratic Senate panel last week.
Allow me to quote myself from the first time I wrote about this (link above):
CEO ponders healthcare reform; my thoughts on "universal" healthcare
As a rule, I don't like Starbucks. I think they're overpriced, but from a business standpoint, I admire what they've accomplished. I admire their market penetration and brand acceptance, and the way people actively seek them out over just about every other brand. They're sort of like Bose in that respect: way overpriced for what you actually get.
But I must say that after reading this brief article from Fortune, I admire CEO Howard Schultz for more than just his business acumen.
On a freezing winter day in 1961, 7-year-old Howard Schultz came home from school in Brooklyn to find his parents in tears. His dad, a deliveryman, had broken his ankle and was out of a job, with no health insurance.
His family's fear scarred Schultz. Later, as he grew Starbucks, he vowed to build "the kind of company my father never got a chance to work for." Schultz was a leader in offering comprehensive benefits to part-timers - and the loyal talent Starbucks has thus attracted, he says, has been central to its success.
Now Starbucks' benevolent coffee republic is at risk. Like every business, it has seen double-digit increases in health costs.