Keep in mind that this study suggests a theory rather than a result. That is, the downside of the drug hasn't shown up in the clinical trials. Theories are important, but don't matter until proven. And I am still somewhat unsure of the significance of the theory until/unless there are similar comparisons made with other NSAIDs, since the article's logic keys on a factor common to all drugs in this class (i.e., "While it is true that current NSAIDs also suppress prostacyclin"). If (and only if) the theory holds true, it would seem to me the degree of risk would be different for each NSAID, COX-2 or otherwise. And logically, right now we are talking about a theoretical "base risk" which could be near-zero, and indeed seems to be such in clinical trials.
...the bottom line is this whole thing hinges on a theory...
Moreover, there is another curious aspect to this whole thing. Note, the actual study (dated Jan 5th 1999) was actually available on paper in JULY OF LAST YEAR, and reviewed in OCTOBER. Surprisingly, that study DOES NOT mention Searle as a funding source at all. However, the later rehash of the study (dated Jan 14th) -- which casts the same results in a new light -- does mention Searle as a funding source. I don't get it. |
