EDITORIAL – Celebrex not a reason to celebrate

Just Google it and you’ll see the endless array of possibilities: Studies show, “Celebrex may… Just Google it and you’ll see the endless array of possibilities: Studies show, “Celebrex may contribute to heart disease,” “Celebrex may make you better-looking,” “Celebrex may reduce chances of cancer of the wrist,” “Celebrex may attract bears.”

There are a lot of things Celebrex may or may not do, but Rosie Ware is betting it caused her stroke, which she suffered at the relatively young age of 53. Ware’s court date with Pfizer is set for June 6, and the powerful drug company is faced with the looming possibility that it may have to pull its second darling COX-2 inhibitor, which is used to treat arthritis pain or to make roughly $2 billion annually, depending on whether you’re a consumer or you’re Pfizer.

As it turns out, Celebrex is now the only drug of its kind remaining on the market. Merck’s popular Vioxx and Pfizer’s own Bextra were pulled when they came under fire for causing dramatically increased risk of – you guessed it – heart attack and stroke.

So, as we file this Celebrex business under “Saw This Coming a Mile Away,” perhaps it’s time for a reappraisal of the prescription drug market.

Prescription drugs used to be just another component of healthcare. As such, you trusted your doctor to prescribe what you needed when you encountered an ailment, you took the pills when and how instructed and you thought little of it other than that. There were no euphoric ads during the Super Bowl exhorting you to ask your doctor about amoxicillin.

But the landscape’s a bit different these days. Pharmaceutical companies are allowed to advertise directly to the consumer. They actively court doctors everywhere and drown them in samples of the latest superdrugs. Those doctors struggle just to keep up with their overwhelming patient loads, to say nothing of the research needed to properly understand the hot new boutique drug that their patients are suddenly coming in and asking for. The Food and Drug Administration, mired in conflicts of interest and political pressure, rushes drugs to market. Lost somewhere in the shuffle is any realistic understanding of just how risky prescription drugs can be.

As sad as this may be to have to admit, you simply cannot rely on the FDA, the pharmaceutical companies or even necessarily your doctor to make sure that nothing goes into your body that will harm you. Today’s patient is a consumer, and as a consumer, if you want to be safe, you need to do your own research. That is not to say you can’t trust your doctor, but you wouldn’t buy a car without looking into it. You shouldn’t buy something that changes your body chemistry without research, either.

Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies are all too proficient at lulling consumers into lowering their guards. It is irresponsible of the pharmaceutical industry to advertise to consumers and downplay their drugs’ potentially serious side-effects. It is irresponsible for the FDA not to take as long as it needs to ensure that drugs are safe. It is irresponsible for Congress to allow all of this to happen. It is very unfortunate, indeed, that it is not just possible – but the norm – for companies like Pfizer to advertise in such volume and with such disingenuousness that consumers regard “may increase risk of stroke” on a prescription bottle with the same seriousness with which they regard the “do not operate under water” warning on their toasters. But, unfortunately, that is the state of the industry today.

Good luck, Ms. Ware. You may win your suit, but the odds are still stacked against you.