FDA Approves Many Drugs They Know Increase Heart and Stroke Risk

University physician calls on FDA to address hidden risk

The agency charged to protect patients from dangerous drug side effects needs to be far more vigilant when it comes to medications that affect blood pressure.

Robert P. Blankfield, MD, MS, a clinical professor of family medicine, issues this call to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in an editorial published recently in an online edition of the Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics; the print version of the article is expected to appear this autumn.

The editorial notes that several medications survived FDA scrutiny, only to be pulled from the market after reports of increased heart attacks and strokes related to use of the drugs. These include rofecoxib (Vioxx), valdecoxib (Bextra), and sibutramine (Meridia). What these drugs have in common is that they raise blood pressure. Other medications approved by the FDA, including some antidepressant medications as well as medications used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, also raise blood pressure but remain on the market despite inadequate safety data.

At issue is the apparent disconnect between what patients and doctors might consider “clinically significant” risk and the standards that some FDA reviewers apply when evaluating the safety of new therapeutics. When it comes to medications that affect blood pressure, a few FDA reviewers only classify “clinically significant” blood pressure spikes as those that raise systolic blood pressure by 20 mm Hg (milliliters of mercury) or diastolic blood pressure by 10 to 15 mm Hg.

Increases in systolic blood pressure of more than 2 mm Hg or increases in diastolic blood pressure of more than 1 mm Hg raise the risk for heart attack by 10 percent and stroke by 7 percent in middle-aged adults, according to an epidemiological study published in Lancet in 2002. Younger individuals have less risk. For example, studies published in 2011 in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Associationindicate that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medications are safe when used by young adults. While different populations differ in terms of cardiovascular risk, Blankfield believes one point should draw broad agreement: unless one is a healthy, young adult, clinicians and patients should have adequate cardiovascular safety data before they make prescription decisions.

“It is unwise to allow medications that predictably increase risk to be marketed without adequate safety data,” said Blankfield, also a family physician at University Hospitals Berea Health Center. “Risk should be quantified, and the product label should accurately communicate the risk.”

Blankfield, who has published other editorials recommending that the FDA require safety data for drugs that raise blood pressure, advocates a three-step solution. First, the FDA needs to establish specific guidelines regarding what degree of blood pressure elevation constitutes a risk for different populations (i.e. young adults, middle aged adults, older adults, diabetics, hypertensives, etc.). Then the agency should require pharmaceutical companies to provide cardiovascular safety data on medications that increase blood pressure. Finally, the agency should require pharmaceutical companies to post relevant data and/or warnings on medication labels.

“This would allow physicians and patients to make informed decisions about medications,” he said. “Physicians and the general public may assume that if a drug is approved by the FDA, it is safe. Yet even modest elevations in blood pressure increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.”

Blankfield was moved to write this editorial now because of the public health importance of the issue.

Source: Case School of Medicine


  • There appears to be a tragic connection between agriculture, medicine and politics. First, we designed a food system off the backs of so called farmed animals, once wild until ten thousand years back, humans began our holocaust on nature. Under the pretense and psychological mis-assumption that humans have some inalienable rite to take other beings for our benefit, that taking of others as our slaves, has given us the culture we have, a predatory, war mongering, anthropocentric society of humans that give themselves diseases which then manifests in what humans do best, manage crisis, with drugs and procedures. It's great for the solvency of the current corrupt medical industrial complex that considers, "health care," through the lens of early detection and treatment. Then there are those doctors who understand that a whole food plant strong, vegan diet remains natures best intended prescription for reversing diseases of the body, mind, morals, and natural world humans desecrate from our grotesque lack of reverence for life, all life.
    Vegan doctors, athletes, authors, rabbi's, nutritionists, activists, are trying to debrief the public who sleeps under the wings of a USDA and FDA whose prime motives are to protect the interests of agribusiness, biotech corporations, and special interests having nothing to do with our good health. Quite the contrary. Profit driven motives result in quite a different scenario like drugs with horrific side effects that legally cause worse symptoms than the symptoms they are suppose to treat. It's systemic perversion. If people want good health, eat REAL food that grows from good soil. It really is that simple. http://www.drmcdougall.com

Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.

Send this to a friend