Government report shows low UK medicine prices

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain, which is planning a radical overhaul of its medicine pricing system from 2014, already has some of the lowest prices in Europe, according to a government report Thursday.

The findings were seized on by pharmaceutical companies as evidence that existing voluntary price-control measures were working well and that the state-run National Health Service (NHS) was getting good value for money.

Health minister Andrew Lansley, however, sees room for improvement. From the end of 2013, he aims to switch to a new system of "value-based pricing" - a concept that has so far been only sketchily defined.

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) is due to start detailed talks on how the system will work in late summer 2012.

Drug prices are under growing pressure across Europe as governments tackle ballooning budget deficits and firms fear the British changes might lead to direct price controls or further obstacles to launching new therapies.

The current Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS), which companies would be happy to retain, controls the prices of branded drugs by regulating profits they are allowed to make on sales to the NHS.

In its latest report to parliament, the Department of Health confirmed that the PPRS was, by and large, doing its job.

In particular, British medicine prices in 2010 were found to be lower than those in any of 10 other comparator European countries. U.S. prices were on average more than 2-1/2 times more expensive. (http://link.reuters.com/fem76s)

The picture was slightly different, however, when average exchange rates over the last five years were used. On this basis, prices were still significantly lower than in the United States and also lower than in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland and Sweden, but not as cheap as in Finland, Spain and France.

Despite low prices, British drugmakers, including GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, argue that patients still struggle to access new medicines, with use of new cancer drugs 33 percent lower than in the rest of Europe.

The increasingly tough environment for drugs is a growing concern for pharmaceutical companies across Europe, some of which have started to relegate the region when it comes to developing new medicines.

Ratings agency Standard & Poor's said in a report on Wednesday that harsher conditions at home also meant Europe's big pharmaceutical firms had been faster to tap into new emerging markets than their U.S. peers.

(Reporting by Ben Hirschler)

View the original article here

Recent Pot Use Could Double Risk of Car Crash, Research Shows

THURSDAY, Feb. 9 (HealthDay News) -- Getting behind the wheel within three hours after using marijuana nearly doubles a driver's risk of having an accident, a large new research review finds.

The risk is especially high for fatal crashes, and the risk is only a little less than that of people who drive drunk, Canadian researchers say.

"On the whole, alcohol increases the risk of a crash at a higher level than cannabis [marijuana]," said lead researcher Mark Asbridge, an associate professor in the community health and epidemiology department at Dalhousie University, in Halifax.

But marijuana makes it harder to judge distance and drivers often tailgate and swerve from lane to lane, which cuts down their reaction time and leads to crashes, he explained.

Although the extent of the problem isn't known, some studies have found that 5 percent of people report driving after using marijuana; and for those under age 25, as many as 20 percent, Asbridge said.

Studies on the effect of driving under the influence of marijuana have had mixed results, he said.

"There were some studies finding that cannabis actually had a negative association with crash risk, so people were actually safer using cannabis driving than when they weren't, but these were poorly designed studies," Asbridge said.

"So our study gives some clarity to the issue in showing a doubling of the risk in the very best studies that are out there and adds some level of justification to existing policies that restrict drug-impaired driving," he said.

The report was published in the Feb. 10 online edition of the BMJ.

To see how marijuana affected driving, Asbridge's team reviewed nine studies that included more than 49,000 people. This process -- called a meta-analysis -- looks for patterns across studies.

The researchers found that those driving under the influence of marijuana were nearly twice as likely to have a car crash as those who were not under the influence.

Studies outside the review have shown that drivers aged 35 and younger are more likely to have car accidents after using marijuana, the authors noted.

"These findings reaffirm many of our accepted understandings regarding acute cannabis intoxication and psychomotor performance," said Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). "That is why operating a motor vehicle while acutely impaired by cannabis is presently a criminal offense in all 50 states."

This risk appears to be greatest in less-experienced cannabis users, younger drivers, and among those who combine the use of cannabis and alcohol, Armentano pointed out.

"That said, it should further be noted that cannabis-induced changes in performance are typically subtle, short-lived and less dramatic in more experienced cannabis consumers, who appear to develop tolerance to some of the drug's behavioral effects," he added.

"Further, this overall elevated risk is far less than the elevated risk of accidents associated with the consumption of alcohol, including its use in legal quantities," Armentano said.

While some suggest that drivers should be tested for marijuana, so far, no effective test exists that can be done at a traffic stop to accurately pinpoint when a driver used the drug.

"This evidence makes a case for introducing policies to reduce cannabis-impaired driving," said Wayne Hall, from the University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research in Brisbane, Australia. He wrote an accompanying editorial for the journal.

He said that roadside drug testing, such as that used for alcohol, may be a useful approach.

But there are no handy devices, such as a breathalyzer, to tell if someone has recently used marijuana, Asbridge noted.

"The challenge is defining a level that equates with impairment. A number of countries have already introduced roadside testing by deciding that any detectable evidence of recent use constitutes impaired driving. However, we do not know how effective testing has been because the policy has not been evaluated," Hall said.

Another expert outlined the problems with such tests.

"Because THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, can be detected several weeks after use of marijuana, it is hard to determine with certainty if a driver testing positive for marijuana is indeed impaired by the substance at the time of testing," said Dr. Guohua Li, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University in New York City.

So more research is needed. "This issue is especially urgent and important in light of the ongoing epidemic of drugged driving and increased permissibility and availability of marijuana worldwide," Li said.

While recognition that driving under the influence of marijuana is a problem is a first step in finding ways to curb it, Jan Withers, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), stated that "drunk driving remains the primary threat to our families on the road."

However, she added, "this study underscores the importance of the work that MADD is doing to support people who have been victimized by drugged driving and recognize law-enforcement's efforts to pioneer effective strategies to stop drugged driving. Notably, it shows the increased danger posed by those drivers using both alcohol and drugs."

More information

For more about drugged driving, visit the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse.

View the original article here

Pot Use Could Double Risk of Car Crash, Research Shows

THURSDAY, Feb. 9 (HealthDay News) -- Getting behind the wheel within three hours after using marijuana nearly doubles a driver's risk of having an accident, a large new research review finds.

The risk is especially high for fatal crashes, and the risk is only a little less than that of people who drive drunk, Canadian researchers say.

"On the whole, alcohol increases the risk of a crash at a higher level than cannabis [marijuana]," said lead researcher Mark Asbridge, an associate professor in the community health and epidemiology department at Dalhousie University, in Halifax.

But marijuana makes it harder to judge distance and drivers often tailgate and swerve from lane to lane, which cuts down their reaction time and leads to crashes, he explained.

Although the extent of the problem isn't known, some studies have found that 5 percent of people report driving after using marijuana; and for those under age 25, as many as 20 percent, Asbridge said.

Studies on the effect of driving under the influence of marijuana have had mixed results, he said.

"There were some studies finding that cannabis actually had a negative association with crash risk, so people were actually safer using cannabis driving than when they weren't, but these were poorly designed studies," Asbridge said.

"So our study gives some clarity to the issue in showing a doubling of the risk in the very best studies that are out there and adds some level of justification to existing policies that restrict drug-impaired driving," he said.

The report was published in the Feb. 10 online edition of the BMJ.

To see how marijuana affected driving, Asbridge's team reviewed nine studies that included more than 49,000 people. This process -- called a meta-analysis -- looks for patterns across studies.

The researchers found that those driving under the influence of marijuana were nearly twice as likely to have a car crash as those who were not under the influence.

Studies outside the review have shown that drivers aged 35 and younger are more likely to have car accidents after using marijuana, the authors noted.

"These findings reaffirm many of our accepted understandings regarding acute cannabis intoxication and psychomotor performance," said Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). "That is why operating a motor vehicle while acutely impaired by cannabis is presently a criminal offense in all 50 states."

This risk appears to be greatest in less-experienced cannabis users, younger drivers, and among those who combine the use of cannabis and alcohol, Armentano pointed out.

"That said, it should further be noted that cannabis-induced changes in performance are typically subtle, short-lived and less dramatic in more experienced cannabis consumers, who appear to develop tolerance to some of the drug's behavioral effects," he added.

"Further, this overall elevated risk is far less than the elevated risk of accidents associated with the consumption of alcohol, including its use in legal quantities," Armentano said.

While some suggest that drivers should be tested for marijuana, so far, no effective test exists that can be done at a traffic stop to accurately pinpoint when a driver used the drug.

"This evidence makes a case for introducing policies to reduce cannabis-impaired driving," said Wayne Hall, from the University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research in Brisbane, Australia. He wrote an accompanying editorial for the journal.

He said that roadside drug testing, such as that used for alcohol, may be a useful approach.

But there are no handy devices, such as a breathalyzer, to tell if someone has recently used marijuana, Asbridge noted.

"The challenge is defining a level that equates with impairment. A number of countries have already introduced roadside testing by deciding that any detectable evidence of recent use constitutes impaired driving. However, we do not know how effective testing has been because the policy has not been evaluated," Hall said.

Another expert outlined the problems with such tests.

"Because THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, can be detected several weeks after use of marijuana, it is hard to determine with certainty if a driver testing positive for marijuana is indeed impaired by the substance at the time of testing," said Dr. Guohua Li, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University in New York City.

So more research is needed. "This issue is especially urgent and important in light of the ongoing epidemic of drugged driving and increased permissibility and availability of marijuana worldwide," Li said.

While recognition that driving under the influence of marijuana is a problem is a first step in finding ways to curb it, Jan Withers, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), stated that "drunk driving remains the primary threat to our families on the road."

However, she added, "this study underscores the importance of the work that MADD is doing to support people who have been victimized by drugged driving and recognize law-enforcement's efforts to pioneer effective strategies to stop drugged driving. Notably, it shows the increased danger posed by those drivers using both alcohol and drugs."

More information

For more about drugged driving, visit the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse.

View the original article here

Recent Pot Use Could Double Risk of Car Crash, Research Shows

THURSDAY, Feb. 9 (HealthDay News) -- Getting behind the wheel within three hours after using marijuana nearly doubles a driver's risk of having an accident, a large new research review finds.

The risk is especially high for fatal crashes, and the risk is only a little less than that of people who drive drunk, Canadian researchers say.

"On the whole, alcohol increases the risk of a crash at a higher level than cannabis [marijuana]," said lead researcher Mark Asbridge, an associate professor in the community health and epidemiology department at Dalhousie University, in Halifax.

But marijuana makes it harder to judge distance and drivers often tailgate and swerve from lane to lane, which cuts down their reaction time and leads to crashes, he explained.

Although the extent of the problem isn't known, some studies have found that 5 percent of people report driving after using marijuana; and for those under age 25, as many as 20 percent, Asbridge said.

Studies on the effect of driving under the influence of marijuana have had mixed results, he said.

"There were some studies finding that cannabis actually had a negative association with crash risk, so people were actually safer using cannabis driving than when they weren't, but these were poorly designed studies," Asbridge said.

"So our study gives some clarity to the issue in showing a doubling of the risk in the very best studies that are out there and adds some level of justification to existing policies that restrict drug-impaired driving," he said.

The report was published in the Feb. 10 online edition of the BMJ.

To see how marijuana affected driving, Asbridge's team reviewed nine studies that included more than 49,000 people. This process -- called a meta-analysis -- looks for patterns across studies.

The researchers found that those driving under the influence of marijuana were nearly twice as likely to have a car crash as those who were not under the influence.

Studies outside the review have shown that drivers aged 35 and younger are more likely to have car accidents after using marijuana, the authors noted.

"These findings reaffirm many of our accepted understandings regarding acute cannabis intoxication and psychomotor performance," said Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). "That is why operating a motor vehicle while acutely impaired by cannabis is presently a criminal offense in all 50 states."

This risk appears to be greatest in less-experienced cannabis users, younger drivers, and among those who combine the use of cannabis and alcohol, Armentano pointed out.

"That said, it should further be noted that cannabis-induced changes in performance are typically subtle, short-lived and less dramatic in more experienced cannabis consumers, who appear to develop tolerance to some of the drug's behavioral effects," he added.

"Further, this overall elevated risk is far less than the elevated risk of accidents associated with the consumption of alcohol, including its use in legal quantities," Armentano said.

While some suggest that drivers should be tested for marijuana, so far, no effective test exists that can be done at a traffic stop to accurately pinpoint when a driver used the drug.

"This evidence makes a case for introducing policies to reduce cannabis-impaired driving," said Wayne Hall, from the University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research in Brisbane, Australia. He wrote an accompanying editorial for the journal.

He said that roadside drug testing, such as that used for alcohol, may be a useful approach.

But there are no handy devices, such as a breathalyzer, to tell if someone has recently used marijuana, Asbridge noted.

"The challenge is defining a level that equates with impairment. A number of countries have already introduced roadside testing by deciding that any detectable evidence of recent use constitutes impaired driving. However, we do not know how effective testing has been because the policy has not been evaluated," Hall said.

Another expert outlined the problems with such tests.

"Because THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, can be detected several weeks after use of marijuana, it is hard to determine with certainty if a driver testing positive for marijuana is indeed impaired by the substance at the time of testing," said Dr. Guohua Li, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University in New York City.

So more research is needed. "This issue is especially urgent and important in light of the ongoing epidemic of drugged driving and increased permissibility and availability of marijuana worldwide," Li said.

While recognition that driving under the influence of marijuana is a problem is a first step in finding ways to curb it, Jan Withers, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), stated that "drunk driving remains the primary threat to our families on the road."

However, she added, "this study underscores the importance of the work that MADD is doing to support people who have been victimized by drugged driving and recognize law-enforcement's efforts to pioneer effective strategies to stop drugged driving. Notably, it shows the increased danger posed by those drivers using both alcohol and drugs."

More information

For more about drugged driving, visit the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse.

View the original article here

Pot Use Could Double Risk of Car Crash, Research Shows

THURSDAY, Feb. 9 (HealthDay News) -- Getting behind the wheel within three hours after using marijuana nearly doubles a driver's risk of having an accident, a large new research review finds.

The risk is especially high for fatal crashes, and the risk is only a little less than that of people who drive drunk, Canadian researchers say.

"On the whole, alcohol increases the risk of a crash at a higher level than cannabis [marijuana]," said lead researcher Mark Asbridge, an associate professor in the community health and epidemiology department at Dalhousie University, in Halifax.

But marijuana makes it harder to judge distance and drivers often tailgate and swerve from lane to lane, which cuts down their reaction time and leads to crashes, he explained.

Although the extent of the problem isn't known, some studies have found that 5 percent of people report driving after using marijuana; and for those under age 25, as many as 20 percent, Asbridge said.

Studies on the effect of driving under the influence of marijuana have had mixed results, he said.

"There were some studies finding that cannabis actually had a negative association with crash risk, so people were actually safer using cannabis driving than when they weren't, but these were poorly designed studies," Asbridge said.

"So our study gives some clarity to the issue in showing a doubling of the risk in the very best studies that are out there and adds some level of justification to existing policies that restrict drug-impaired driving," he said.

The report was published in the Feb. 10 online edition of the BMJ.

To see how marijuana affected driving, Asbridge's team reviewed nine studies that included more than 49,000 people. This process -- called a meta-analysis -- looks for patterns across studies.

The researchers found that those driving under the influence of marijuana were nearly twice as likely to have a car crash as those who were not under the influence.

Studies outside the review have shown that drivers aged 35 and younger are more likely to have car accidents after using marijuana, the authors noted.

"These findings reaffirm many of our accepted understandings regarding acute cannabis intoxication and psychomotor performance," said Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). "That is why operating a motor vehicle while acutely impaired by cannabis is presently a criminal offense in all 50 states."

This risk appears to be greatest in less-experienced cannabis users, younger drivers, and among those who combine the use of cannabis and alcohol, Armentano pointed out.

"That said, it should further be noted that cannabis-induced changes in performance are typically subtle, short-lived and less dramatic in more experienced cannabis consumers, who appear to develop tolerance to some of the drug's behavioral effects," he added.

"Further, this overall elevated risk is far less than the elevated risk of accidents associated with the consumption of alcohol, including its use in legal quantities," Armentano said.

While some suggest that drivers should be tested for marijuana, so far, no effective test exists that can be done at a traffic stop to accurately pinpoint when a driver used the drug.

"This evidence makes a case for introducing policies to reduce cannabis-impaired driving," said Wayne Hall, from the University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research in Brisbane, Australia. He wrote an accompanying editorial for the journal.

He said that roadside drug testing, such as that used for alcohol, may be a useful approach.

But there are no handy devices, such as a breathalyzer, to tell if someone has recently used marijuana, Asbridge noted.

"The challenge is defining a level that equates with impairment. A number of countries have already introduced roadside testing by deciding that any detectable evidence of recent use constitutes impaired driving. However, we do not know how effective testing has been because the policy has not been evaluated," Hall said.

Another expert outlined the problems with such tests.

"Because THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, can be detected several weeks after use of marijuana, it is hard to determine with certainty if a driver testing positive for marijuana is indeed impaired by the substance at the time of testing," said Dr. Guohua Li, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University in New York City.

So more research is needed. "This issue is especially urgent and important in light of the ongoing epidemic of drugged driving and increased permissibility and availability of marijuana worldwide," Li said.

While recognition that driving under the influence of marijuana is a problem is a first step in finding ways to curb it, Jan Withers, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), stated that "drunk driving remains the primary threat to our families on the road."

However, she added, "this study underscores the importance of the work that MADD is doing to support people who have been victimized by drugged driving and recognize law-enforcement's efforts to pioneer effective strategies to stop drugged driving. Notably, it shows the increased danger posed by those drivers using both alcohol and drugs."

More information

For more about drugged driving, visit the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse.

View the original article here

Study on mice shows fasting weakens cancer

Early research on mice with cancer shows that fasting may weaken tumors and help chemotherapy work better, scientists said on Wednesday.

While it remains unknown if the same approach could work in humans, or if it would even be safe, researchers said the findings suggest a promising new route of study for improving response to cancer treatment.

In the mice experiments, "the combination of fasting cycles plus chemotherapy was either more or much more effective than chemo alone," said senior author Valter Longo, professor of gerontology and biological sciences at the University of Southern California (USC).

Longo and colleagues previously published findings in 2008 that showed how fasting protected normal cells against chemotherapy in a study that focused on one type of cancer and a single chemo drug.

The latest study expands on that research to show that fasting makes cancer cells more vulnerable, and spanned several different types of cancer in mice.

Types of cancers studied included breast cancer, melanoma, glioma and human neuroblastoma.

All cancers studied showed that fasting combined with chemotherapy improved survival, slowed the growth of tumors and/or limited their spread.

The study appears in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

"We don't know whether in humans it's effective," Longo said, adding that for now fasting should be "off-limits" to cancer patients, although they should feel they can ask their doctors about the possibility.

In 2010, a small study of 10 human cancer patients who tried fasting cycles with their drug treatment showed that they perceived fewer side effects from chemo, according to self-reported data. The study was published in the journal Aging.

The results of a phase 1 trial assessing the safety of fasting two days before and one day after chemotherapy in patients with breast, urinary tract and ovarian cancer, conducted at the USC, have been submitted for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Cancer Oncologists later this year.

"A way to beat cancer cells may not be to try to find drugs that kill them specifically but to confuse them by generating extreme environments, such as fasting that only normal cells can quickly respond to," Longo said.

ksh/rl

View the original article here

Study on mice shows fasting weakens cancer

Early research on mice with cancer shows that fasting may weaken tumors and help chemotherapy work better, scientists said on Wednesday.

While it remains unknown if the same approach could work in humans, or if it would even be safe, researchers said the findings suggest a promising new route of study for improving response to cancer treatment.

In the mice experiments, "the combination of fasting cycles plus chemotherapy was either more or much more effective than chemo alone," said senior author Valter Longo, professor of gerontology and biological sciences at the University of Southern California (USC).

Longo and colleagues previously published findings in 2008 that showed how fasting protected normal cells against chemotherapy in a study that focused on one type of cancer and a single chemo drug.

The latest study expands on that research to show that fasting makes cancer cells more vulnerable, and spanned several different types of cancer in mice.

Types of cancers studied included breast cancer, melanoma, glioma and human neuroblastoma.

All cancers studied showed that fasting combined with chemotherapy improved survival, slowed the growth of tumors and/or limited their spread.

The study appears in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

"We don't know whether in humans it's effective," Longo said, adding that for now fasting should be "off-limits" to cancer patients, although they should feel they can ask their doctors about the possibility.

In 2010, a small study of 10 human cancer patients who tried fasting cycles with their drug treatment showed that they perceived fewer side effects from chemo, according to self-reported data. The study was published in the journal Aging.

The results of a phase 1 trial assessing the safety of fasting two days before and one day after chemotherapy in patients with breast, urinary tract and ovarian cancer, conducted at the USC, have been submitted for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Cancer Oncologists later this year.

"A way to beat cancer cells may not be to try to find drugs that kill them specifically but to confuse them by generating extreme environments, such as fasting that only normal cells can quickly respond to," Longo said.

View the original article here