<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: blocker</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'blocker'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22blocker%22&t=%22blocker%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:25:54 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Blood Pressure Drugs Do Not Raise Cancer Risk</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4893917&amp;cid=t_223387_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FaIPonxw6_os%2F</link>
            <description>One year after an analysis of five studies involving some 60,000 patients found links between angiotensin receptor blockers and an increased risk of cancer, the FDA has now decided that these meds - which are used to control high blood pressure, do not pose such a risk.
The study, which was published in The Lancet Oncology and prompted the FDA review, found that 7.2 percent of patients on an ARB were diagnosed with cancer compared with 6 percent on a placebo, which was deemed statistically significant. Put another way: one extra cancer case would occur for every 105 people taking the meds for about four years (back story).
Most of the patients were taking Boehringer Ingelheim’s Micardis, a $1.5 billion seller, prompting an angry rebuttal from the drugmaker. Other ARBs that were studied i...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4893917</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:21:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4893917</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Medicare Part D Helps Heart-Failure Patients: Study</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3790922&amp;cid=t_223387_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FD6X1iIXfZM4%2F</link>
            <description>Medicare Part D may be helping more older Americans with heart failure get meds used to control the disease. A new study of nearly 7,000 older heart failure patients in a big insurance plan found the number of filled prescriptions for standard heart failure meds increased after Part D began in 2006, and the biggest increase was among seniors who previously lacked drug coverage.
The results, which were reported in the American Heart Journal, are the first to show Part D may help more people with heart failure get meds that are recommended to lower the risk of hospitalization and extend lives. The findings, Reuters writes, suggest concerns that drugmakers would be the largest beneficiaries from the program may be unfounded. You may recall that a 2007 report by IMS Health found Part D boosted...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3790922</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:08:25 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3790922</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Problem Of Drug Extinction</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3595589&amp;cid=t_223387_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fthe-problem-of-drug-extinction%2F2010.05.24</link>
            <description>Doctors are all-familiar with marketing efforts to promote new drugs, but once the new drugs displace older drugs in the medical marketplace, who serves as advocates for the continued manufacturing of older FDA-approved drugs?
In a short answer: No one.
For those of us dealing in cardiac arrhythmia management, this presents difficult challenges for patient care if people are unable to take the newer drugs due to side effects. These patients no longer have a fall-back option to turn to for medical therapy when the older drugs have become extinct on the marketplace. (more&amp;#8230;)

			
			*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes* (Source: Better Health)</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3595589</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 12:30:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3595589</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Once More Around the Bend for the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2134696&amp;cid=t_223387_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F01%2F26%2Fonce-more-around-the-bend-for-the-melanie-blocker-stokes-mothers-act%2F</link>
            <description>Today, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) officially kicked off his efforts to secure an increased federal commitment to combating postpartum depression by reintroducing the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act in the Senate. Yes, you&amp;#8217;ve probably heard of this bill before, since it has been sitting around in one form or another in Congress for YEARS (through no fault of the people who have sponsored it). Let&amp;#8217;s hope this time&amp;#8217;s the charm. I&amp;#8217;m personally grateful to Senator Menendez for keeping up the pressure.
	The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act won&amp;#8217;t be the final answer when it comes to helping all women with perinatal mood and anxiety disorders. It&amp;#8217;s just a start, but one that is desperately needed. I hate that we even need the government to get invo...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2134696</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:23:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2134696</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Association Between Beta-Blockers, Other Antihypertensive Drugs and Psoriasis: Population-based Case-control Study</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1649039&amp;cid=t_223387_87_f&amp;fid=34935&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedicine.com.my%2Fwp%2F%3Fp%3D3741</link>
            <description>When I was a medical student, I was thought that beta blockers either precipitate or aggravates psoriasis. When I was a Masters student, I was told the same thing by a dermatologist. Now, I teach medical students the same thing. Looks like things have come full circle.
But now, a large case control analysis involving more than 36 thousand people in UK may just put this myth to rest.
You can read more about it here: Beta blockers and psoriasis, is there a link?
I shall no longer propagate this belief. 
a
Association Between Beta-Blockers, Other Antihypertensive Drugs and Psoriasis: Population-based Case-control Study (Source: Malaysian Medical Resources)</description>
            <author>Malaysian Medical Resources</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1649039</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1649039</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Forest Labs and Mylan's Bystolic Gets FDA Approval for Hypertension</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1103497&amp;cid=t_223387_97_f&amp;fid=35050&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmaGazette%2F%7E3%2F202250891%2Fforest_labs_and_mylans_bystoli.html</link>
            <description>Forest Laboratories Inc. (NYSE:FRX) and Mylan Inc.(NYSE:MYL) have received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for their beta blocker Bystolic.Bystolic, indicated for the treatment of hypertension, is a one daily medication that&amp;nbsp;can be used in conjunction with other high blood pressure drugs or alone. The drug is a beta blocker which is one of the most prescribed classes of drug in the U.S. In several clinical trials Bystolic showed significant decreases in sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressure in a group of patients that included 26 percent black, 54 percent male, 19 percent elderly and 8 percent diabetic.&amp;quot;Bystolic is the newest beta blocker approved for the treatment of hypertension in the U.S. and should prove useful due to its efficacy in a broad range of patie...</description>
            <author>PharmaGazette</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1103497</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:00:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1103497</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Beta-blocker won't cause weight gain</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=733635&amp;cid=t_223387_87_f&amp;fid=34867&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thediabetesblog.com%2F2007%2F07%2F13%2Fbeta-blocker-wont-cause-weight-gain%2F</link>
            <description>Filed under: Type 2, Drugs, Research, Daily NewsThe beta-blocker carvedilol does not cause weight gain in diabetic patients, declares a new study just out. Significance? It means the drug does away with a problematic side-effect of other (earlier) beta-blockers, which are medications prescribed to correct high blood pressure. The study has been published in the American Journal of Medicine (July 2007) and was conducted by researchers at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York.Around eleven hundred patients participated in the study, all of whom have Type 2 diabetes and also suffer from high blood pressure. Some took the new drug carvedilol, while others were given the standard metoprolol. Over the course of five months the patients on metoprolol gained an average of 1.19 kg/2.6 lb...</description>
            <author>The Diabetes Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=733635</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">733635</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Lack of adrenaline causes insulin-induced hypoglycemia</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=623483&amp;cid=t_223387_87_f&amp;fid=34867&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thediabetesblog.com%2F2007%2F05%2F19%2Flack-of-adrenaline-causes-insulin-induced-hypoglycemia%2F</link>
            <description>Filed under: Type 1, Type 2, Childhood, Adult Onset, Lifestyle, Drugs, ResearchWhen blood sugar is falling, the stopper built into the body is the release of glucagon from the liver. However, when hypoglycemia is due to injected insulin - the stopper isn't entirely in place. Scientists explain how epinephrine (adrenaline) plays a major role in regulating glucose in times of low blood sugar and how this response could be adversely affected by the use of beta-blockers.
During insulin-induced hypoglycemia in dogs, the roles of epinephrine and glucagon were evaluated. The dogs fasted overnight to remove excess glucose from the blood. The dogs also had their adrenal glands removed. The adrenal glands are the source of epinephrine. Epinephrine is released into the bloodstream in response to phys...</description>
            <author>The Diabetes Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=623483</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2007 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">623483</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

