You win some, you lose some

[ElectricBlue]

Looks like the old wives' tale was true, after all. Wank, and you'll go blind (but only if you're taking medical assistance).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/...om-drug-cialis-eye-disease-glaucoma/106994086

Eek!

 

[anthrodisiac]

Dear God, tadalafil is the greatest drug name of all time.

Also, maybe don't take it.

 

[SimonDoom]

Fortunately, you don't need to SEE an erection to enjoy it.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

I am dubious.

Tadalafil is off patent. It was introduced what, over 20 years ago? It's available as an inexpensive generic. According to the linked article, this is the first study to link it to major health problems.

That stinks of "something's off about the study" to this bio person. @EmilyMiller, your thoughts?

 

[EmilyMiller]

@EmilyMiller, your thoughts?

Caveat: not really my area

Only read the abstract, the key finding is:

Tadalafil users had a higher 5-year cumulative incidence [of a type of glaucoma] than non-users (3.93% vs 3.16%; p<0.001).

This is based on data analysis of about 40,000 men using the drug and a control group of the same size who were not. It should be stated that this is mining of existing data, not an experiment designed specifically to gather data pertinent to this question.

TriNetX is a massive multinational database which tags anonymized paitients with demographics, medications, conditions, treatments, and so on. The researchers selected anonymized records that fit their desired attributes and a matched control group.

There is value in such analyses, but there is also an ever present danger of selection bias. The authors claim to have guarded against this and I’m sure they tried to, but such studies have been later withdrawn due to statistical flaws or methodological issues.

At the end of the day, I don’t think I’d characterize 3.93% vs 3.16% as a startling difference. I’m doing some other stuff, but I might look into this further when I have time.

I think the press headline was a little hyperbolic.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

This is based on data analysis of about 40,000 men using the drug and a control group of the same size who were not. It should be stated that this is mining of existing data, not an experiment designed specifically to gather data pertinent to this question.

I have not read the study, but I wonder if this was indeed data mining ... which would make it even less compelling. I don't get the impression that they hypothesized this correlation before searching. If they trawled this database and just found a few correlations at slightly above chance-seeming levels, that is unsurprising and not significant.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Yeah, if you have a huge database and can mine for thousands of different potential correlations, you get to the point where even p<0.001 doesn't mean much, because you'd expect at least one such correlation with that much data to pick from.

I was startled recently to be asked if I was taking Viagra or similar drugs, what with the lack of penis. I'd forgotten that they did end up passing their trials for reducing high blood pressure, and do indeed get prescribed for that purpose (with a benefit that male patients actually comply...)

 

[Trionyx]

Put another way, in a group of a thousand users, there were 8 more who developed glaucoma when compared to nonusers. The other 992 didn’t develop the condition or would have had it anyway. With all the caveats noted by Emily, you have to ask what would have happened to the thousand if they hadn’t been placed on the drug. How many would have had surgery with its potential complications? How many would have been placed on testosterone blockers and alpha blockers (alternative therapies for enlarged prostates) and what are their potential complications?

I am not suggesting that the study was faulty but I am saying there is a whole lot more that goes into the decision making than this one piece of data that sounds ominous in the headline news.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Is it time to play Prescription Drug or Tolkien Elf again?

https://play.howstuffworks.com/quiz/drug-or-tolkien-elf-quiz

 

[BeechLeaf]

Is it time to post the applicable xkcd?

Green Jelly Beans Linked to Acne!

 

[Dommemomme]

Looks like the old wives' tale was true, after all. Wank, and you'll go blind (but only if you're taking medical assistance).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/...om-drug-cialis-eye-disease-glaucoma/106994086

Eek!

My late husband was a physician.He noted that when sildenafil citrate came out it soon became associated in some minds with gay culture. The Morality Police began a campaign against it which continues today. All drugs have side effects. Risk/benefit tradeoffs are always very personal and never absolute.

 

[TheLobster]

Is it time to play Prescription Drug or Tolkien Elf again?

https://play.howstuffworks.com/quiz/drug-or-tolkien-elf-quiz

If I got 28/30, does this mean I'm secretly an expert pharmacist?

 

[bumpercars]

If I got 28/30, does this mean I'm secretly an expert pharmacist?

You could also be an elf.

Although Elrond was a healer with knowledge of many herbs, so I suppose you could be both.

(I got 22. Clearly my love of the halfling's leaf has slowed my mind.)

 

[Seurat]

Dear God, tadalafil is the greatest drug name of all time.

Also, maybe don't take it.

Personally, I'll stick to my Whoopteedoodahzide.