Could Lawsuits Against Big Pharma Prevent Them From Working on a Hair Loss Cure?
Dear Dr. Rassman,
I’m very concerned over the article regarding the law suit being launched against Merck. I’m 31 and have been using Propecia for the past two years, which reversed crown thinning and has maintained a mostly full head of hair for me. I stay hopeful however that a better medication or procedure will come along for maintenance/regrowth over the next decade. Do you think that law suits like this are going to kill the efforts, funding, and motivation to continue research for creating more options for hair loss sufferers?
Thanks for your time
There’s around 7 billion people in the world, about half of those are men… and in general, hair loss affects about 50% of the male population to some degree. So with such a huge potential market measured in billions, if there is opportunity the drug companies will likely work it. These companies are in the business of making money. Lawsuits won’t stop them from their research and development.
We live in a very litigious society and a lawsuit against Merck does not mean they’re guilty or at fault.
The Journal of Sexual Medicine article – mentioned in the AOL Health newspaper/blog article -is only a review of clinical studies and says little about the whether the issue of permanent sexual dysfunction with these drugs exist (anecdotal reports are not evidence until other factors have been ruled out). What is needed is a scientific evaluation of whether individuals who are experiencing this have it due to their drugs or some other factor (I am assuming that this is going on right now). And “guilt” is not “guilt” for a drug manufacturer unless a company had knowledge of this before regulatory submission and hid such information. If a true phenomena, permanent sexual dysfunction is likely to be rare enough that it only appeared after drug approval when many thousands of men took the drug (drug approval is based on a smaller number in clinical studies). Anyone can sue and very little, so far, “casts doubt on (Merck’s) innocence†by suggesting that Merck knew or should have known about this issue (if it truly exists).
Isn’t this the same study that was soliciting men with side effects to contact them? I suppose that might explain “selection bias” that they list.
There might be something to the study, but when you hand pick participants for a survey about side effects they claim to have started experiencing years earlier, isn’t it possible that you’re going to have skewed results? It would be like asking regulars at a particular restaurant who they thought had the best burger in town. You already have a good idea what they might say.
Phil, your analogy isn’t a realistic comparison. A more proper analogy would be one in which a study intended to investigate all aspects of why particular restaurant go-ers choose to eat at that restaurant.
It is essentially a case study into patients who previously took finasteride, developed sexual dysfunction, and stopped. A detailed investigation into the medical/sexual/social history of each patient was conducted and about 1/3 of those surveyed were excluded from the final report do a variety of reasons. For example, patients with previous psychiatric conditions or erectile problems were removed from the study because one could object that a confounding factor caused the problem.
The study served two purposes. First, it gathered a sample of 71 patients who were found to have no reason to have sexual dysfunction other than having taken finasteride. If a large group of people have symptom X that results from a variety of known conditions, none of which are present in the sample, but they all share characteristic Y, it is highly likely that Y is the culprit. Not 100% guaranteed of course, but then again the sun may not rise again tomorrow. Secondly, the study serves to enter a body of specific cases into the medical literature. Doctors can no longer disregard inquiries about sexual dysfunction as being circumstantial and internet hearsay. It has now been officially published in a highly respected medical journal and cannot be ascribed to the online activity of internet trolls.
Now that post-finasteride syndrome has been acknowledged as a realistic condition, doctors can better advise their patients, but it remains to be determined if anybody will find a cure for those who have been severely damaged.
I don’t think the lawsuit will have any impact, people sue drug manufacturers all the time, but they are still in business. Similarly just look at big Tobacco. They’ve been sued all over the globe, but they still keep churning out their poison.
What I would like to see is a longitudinal follow-up of these patients who the study suggested had ED caused by Finasteride
I’m tired of hearing sexual dysfunction and finasteride in the same sentence! It is listed as a side effect so I don’t see how a lawsuit is going to fly. If ed persists after stopping the medication then I would look elsewhere for a problem. The whole reason for taking fin is to lower dht and slow or stop hair loss. The drug works.
Robert West – the difference between reversible and permanent side effects for taking a drug are gargantuan. Warnings of the former are in now way equivalent to the latter. If you can’t understand this, you are an idiot.