singulair…..
Question:
> X-No-Archive: yes >My understanding is that the division is rougly 1/3 1/3 1/3 > References?
Good question. I forget where I got this. It’s been several years. Does anyone know of references for the statistics. — — Lou Pecora – My views are my own.
Response:
> > X-No-Archive: yes > >My understanding is that the division is rougly 1/3 1/3 1/3 > References? > Good question. I forget where I got this. It’s been several years. > Does anyone know of references for the statistics.
There have been long threads on this, on this newsgroup. Do a google search, the information should be there. Sue
Response:
> I was diagnosed with mild asthma in ny I moved down south to florida and was by > my new specialist introduced to singulair a one a day pill . I have been taking > it for 3 years now and it is totally wonderful.i can now excercise and do > almost any type of outdoor activity without using my albuterol inhaler.i would > state the since i started taking singulair i have had to use my inhaler mybe 5 > times in the 3 years. i highly reccommend.i don’t want to sound like a > commercial but would rather help a few people maybe try it and see the > difference . ps.it’s a non-steroid pill..thanks
I attended a controlled field test of singulair, and the blood check at the end told us that my liver freaked out. It took half a year to recover, so I’d recommend to be careful. andy
Response:
I found doing a FDA search on tests with meds and others can give the results you might be looking for. Just a suggestion. UM MOM Susan
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> X-No-Archive: yes >There have been long threads on this, on this newsgroup. Do a google >search, the information should be there. > First of all, I could find nothing on Medline to support the percentages given. > Second, I did a search of the alt.support.asthma archives for the following > terms: > "Montelukast Sodium"—–50 results > and… > "Singulair"—–2,800 results > I read the 50 posts from the first search, and found no studies that were > posted which supported this 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 claim. There were, however, several > posts from various people making the same claim. > Colin Campbell wrote in a post: > ”Antecodal evidence in this group is: > 1/3 of the people who tried it: Vast improvement > 1/3 of the people who tried it: Modest improvement > 1/3 of the people who tried it: No effects whatsoever" > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d7s4ksk9qv22bbop8eihqt4q037ismtn… > 4ax.com > So apparently there is no randomized, placebo-controlled study to back up these > numbers. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Response:
>Colin Campbell wrote in a post: >”Antecodal evidence in this group is: >1/3 of the people who tried it: Vast improvement >1/3 of the people who tried it: Modest improvement >1/3 of the people who tried it: No effects whatsoever" >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d7s4ksk9qv22bbop8eihqt4q037ismtn… >4ax.com >So apparently there is no randomized, placebo-controlled study to back up these >numbers. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Why do you think I stated that: ”Antecodal evidence in this group is:"???? BTW – exactly what point are you trying to make here? — "We are fighting today for security, for progress, and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all men, not only for one generation but for all generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills." Franklin Delano Rosevelt State of the Union Address – 1942
Response:
>X-No-Archive: yes >BTW – exactly what point are you trying to make here? >These statistics are probably wrong. It would be better to look at large, >placebo-controlled trials of the drug to determine its efficacy, than to say >"1/3, 1/3, 1/3" based on the comments of a few Usenet posters (pretty tenuous >evidence). The Google archives show that asa regulars have been stating this as >if it were fact for years now. In fact, it has become the stock answer to the >question "How effective is Serevent?"
Don’t you mean Singulair? — "We are fighting today for security, for progress, and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all men, not only for one generation but for all generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills." Franklin Delano Rosevelt State of the Union Address – 1942
Response:
I am glad to see that I am not the only one with what I call Brain Farts! 
UM MOM Susan
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> X-No-Archive: yes >Don’t you mean Singulair? > LOL! Whoops! Yes, I did. But I think you see my point.
Response:
I think this site may help a lot for this med and others. It’s called Medical Statistics Worldwide and Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Medicine Anywhere. It has come in quite handy with having all the meds I take. I hope it helps. If this posts twice, I am sorry because I don’t see it posted at my end. UM MOM Susan http://www.lib.gla.ac.uk/Depts/MOPS/Stats/medstats.html#United%20States
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> X-No-Archive: yes >I found doing a FDA search on tests with meds and others can give the >results you might be looking for. Just a suggestion. > Thanks Susan. I will look into that next time I’m searching for information on > meds.
Response:
> X-No-Archive: yes >BTW – exactly what point are you trying to make here? > These statistics are probably wrong.
First of all, I see no reason to assume that the stat is "probably wrong." The most you can say is that it is unverified amongst the people stating it but unless you have some information that suggests otherwise your "probably wrong" assessment has en equally great (I would argue greater) chance of being wrong. On the whole this is a fairly responsible crowd and I would tend to consider most such claims to be reasonable estimates until proved otherwise. I tried looking up some articles on medline (granted not too terribly hard) and could not find the source of this exact claim. I did find several studies that cited response rates of 50-80% so the 2/3 response rate is in the right ballpark. Studies usually list average responses and do not break it down into full, partial, and non-reposnders. I have read the statement in other sources (medical articles etc) so I doubt that it orginated with a poll of this group. My search only went back to 1999 si I doubt I searched back far enough to find the original source, if it available on medline. > It would be better to look at large, > placebo-controlled trials of the drug to determine its efficacy, than to say > "1/3, 1/3, 1/3" based on the comments of a few Usenet posters (pretty tenuous > evidence). The Google archives show that asa regulars have been stating this as > if it were fact for years now. In fact, it has become the stock answer to the > question "How effective is Serevent?"
I have not heard anyone say this about Serevent in asthma. — CBI, MD
Response:
> re: 1/3 1/3 1/3
In fact, it has become the stock answer to the > question "How effective is Serevent?"
Hmmmm. I’ve never seen it applied to Severent, only singulair. — — Lou Pecora – My views are my own.
Response:
> Thanks for pointing out my mistake a third time. Couldn’t you read my post > that > said I meant to say Singulair?
That post came later in the thread after I replied to your first post. In fact I thought you might have mis-typed so I didn’t even call it a mistake. I just said, "Hmmmm. I’ve never seen it applied to Severent, only singulair." Which is pretty neutral, I think. There’s enough invective on the news groups that I tried not to add more, but still to wonder aloud. Sorry if that offended. — — Lou Pecora – My views are my own.
Response:
>>BTW – exactly what point are you trying to make here? >These statistics are probably wrong. It would be better to look at large, >placebo-controlled trials of the drug to determine its efficacy, than to say >"1/3, 1/3, 1/3" based on the comments of a few Usenet posters (pretty tenuous >evidence). The Google archives show that asa regulars have been stating this as >if it were fact for years now. In fact, it has become the stock answer to the >question "How effective is Singulair?"
Then go to Medline and do the research if you want more accurate answers. Based on your attitude – I not willing to do this for you. — "We are fighting today for security, for progress, and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all men, not only for one generation but for all generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills." Franklin Delano Rosevelt State of the Union Address – 1942
Response:
I would think if you looked at the prescribing information of the drug it would give you that information. I always read that sheet when I get a new medication, just to know what to expect and to double check the pharmacist and the doc. It always gives dosages, how it works, effects, side effects, contraindicators, cehmical composition, generic name, and a whole slew of information. Your pharmacist may even have one of these available that they could let you have on it for your own reference. Mine usually does, as it ( the information sheet/insert ) is often taken out of the the original package and seldom given to the patient, and the patient is usually just given part of the information referring to use and dosing. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > X-No-Archive: yes > First of all, I see no reason to assume that the stat is "probably > wrong." The most you can say is that it is unverified amongst the > people stating it but unless you have some information that suggests > otherwise your "probably wrong" assessment has en equally great (I > would argue greater) chance of being wrong. On the whole this is a > fairly responsible crowd and I would tend to consider most such > claims to be reasonable estimates until proved otherwise. > I agree with you that this is a fairly responsible crowd. But when I’m > investigating a medication I’m thinking of trying, and somebody > starts listing success rates for it, I’d like to be sure that the > data is coming from a reliable source. I don’t consider newsgroup > polls a very accurate way of determining the effectiveness of a drug. > I tried looking up some articles on medline (granted not too > terribly hard) and could not find the source of this exact claim. I > did find several studies that cited response rates of 50-80% so the > 2/3 response rate is in the right ballpark. Studies usually list > average responses and do not break it down into full, partial, and > non-reposnders. > I have read the statement in other sources (medical articles etc) so > I doubt that it orginated with a poll of this group. > I doubt it too, but Colin maintains that these figures came from > anecdotal evidence in this newsgroup. > My search only went back to > 1999 si I doubt I searched back far enough to find the original > source, if it available on medline. > If I have some time later, I’ll do a more thorough search of medline, > and if I find the original source, I’ll post it here. >> It would be better to look at large, >> placebo-controlled trials of the drug to determine its efficacy, >> than to > say >> "1/3, 1/3, 1/3" based on the comments of a few Usenet posters >> (pretty > tenuous >> evidence). The Google archives show that asa regulars have been >> stating > this as >> if it were fact for years now. In fact, it has become the stock >> answer to > the >> question "How effective is Serevent?" > I have not heard anyone say this about Serevent in asthma. > Colin already pointed out my blunder. It’s not necessary to rub it in.
– Cry havoc! and let loose the dogs of war, That this foul deed shall smell above the earth. With carrion men, groaning for burial. – William Shakespeare (1564-1616), British dramatist, poet. Antony, in Julius Caesar, act 3, sc. 1.
Response:
John if you can see this, turn on your Yahoo or check into the crohn’s group. It;s bad, UM MOM Susan
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would think if you looked at the prescribing information of the drug > it would give you that information. I always read that sheet when I get a > new medication, just to know what to expect and to double check the > pharmacist and the doc. > It always gives dosages, how it works, effects, side effects, > contraindicators, cehmical composition, generic name, and a whole slew of > information. Your pharmacist may even have one of these available that they > could let you have on it for your own reference. Mine usually does, as it > ( the information sheet/insert ) is often taken out of the the original > package and seldom given to the patient, and the patient is usually just > given part of the information referring to use and dosing. > X-No-Archive: yes >> First of all, I see no reason to assume that the stat is "probably >> wrong." The most you can say is that it is unverified amongst the >> people stating it but unless you have some information that suggests >> otherwise your "probably wrong" assessment has en equally great (I >> would argue greater) chance of being wrong. On the whole this is a >> fairly responsible crowd and I would tend to consider most such >> claims to be reasonable estimates until proved otherwise. > I agree with you that this is a fairly responsible crowd. But when I’m > investigating a medication I’m thinking of trying, and somebody > starts listing success rates for it, I’d like to be sure that the > data is coming from a reliable source. I don’t consider newsgroup > polls a very accurate way of determining the effectiveness of a drug. >> I tried looking up some articles on medline (granted not too >> terribly hard) and could not find the source of this exact claim. I >> did find several studies that cited response rates of 50-80% so the >> 2/3 response rate is in the right ballpark. Studies usually list >> average responses and do not break it down into full, partial, and >> non-reposnders. >> I have read the statement in other sources (medical articles etc) so >> I doubt that it orginated with a poll of this group. > I doubt it too, but Colin maintains that these figures came from > anecdotal evidence in this newsgroup. >> My search only went back to >> 1999 si I doubt I searched back far enough to find the original >> source, if it available on medline. > If I have some time later, I’ll do a more thorough search of medline, > and if I find the original source, I’ll post it here. >>> It would be better to look at large, >>> placebo-controlled trials of the drug to determine its efficacy, >>> than to >> say >>> "1/3, 1/3, 1/3" based on the comments of a few Usenet posters >>> (pretty >> tenuous >>> evidence). The Google archives show that asa regulars have been >>> stating >> this as >>> if it were fact for years now. In fact, it has become the stock >>> answer to >> the >>> question "How effective is Serevent?" >> I have not heard anyone say this about Serevent in asthma. > Colin already pointed out my blunder. It’s not necessary to rub it in. > — > Cry havoc! and let loose the dogs of war, That this foul deed shall > smell above the earth. With carrion men, groaning for burial. – William > Shakespeare (1564-1616), British dramatist, poet. Antony, in Julius > Caesar, act 3, sc. 1.
Response:
> John if you can see this, turn on your Yahoo or check into the crohn’s > group. It;s bad, UM MOM Susan
PLOINK!
Response:
> > John if you can see this, turn on your Yahoo or check into the crohn’s > group. It;s bad, UM MOM Susan > PLOINK!
Susan, it’s not really worth a plonk, but if you could be more specific it would make the information you have to share more helpful. Edit what you comment upon so that it is clear what you are referring to, leave a line of white space between that material and your comment so that it is easy to tell where one leaves off and the other one starts, and give specific references. What did you look up on Yahoo, and what are the specific links that would lead to sites of interest to the group? What is the address of the Crohn’s group, and how do you feel that would relate to the question on the floor? Larry
Response:
> X-No-Archive: yes >I attended a controlled field test of singulair, and the blood check at >the end told us that my liver freaked out. It took half a year to >recover, so I’d recommend to be careful. > I’m sorry to hear about your experience with Singulair. Could you tell me, were > you on any other meds at the time? Singulair is a new drug to me, just another > name, but I was thinking of trying it.
Yes, I think my MD gave me Pulmicort at that time. andy
Response:
Well, that was uncalled for. Susan needed to get a hold of me and this was the best way she knew. Sorry it bothered you. > John if you can see this, turn on your Yahoo or check into the > crohn’s group. It;s bad, UM MOM Susan > PLOINK!
– Cry havoc! and let loose the dogs of war, That this foul deed shall smell above the earth. With carrion men, groaning for burial. – William Shakespeare (1564-1616), British dramatist, poet. Antony, in Julius Caesar, act 3, sc. 1.
Response:
> Well, that was uncalled for. Susan needed to get a hold of me and this > was the best way she knew. Sorry it bothered you.
Why not give her your Email address?
Response:
I was diagnosed with mild asthma in ny I moved down south to florida and was by my new specialist introduced to singulair a one a day pill . I have been taking it for 3 years now and it is totally wonderful.i can now excercise and do almost any type of outdoor activity without using my albuterol inhaler.i would state the since i started taking singulair i have had to use my inhaler mybe 5 times in the 3 years. i highly reccommend.i don’t want to sound like a commercial but would rather help a few people maybe try it and see the difference . ps.it’s a non-steroid pill..thanks
Response:
> I was diagnosed with mild asthma in ny I moved down south to florida and was > by > my new specialist introduced to singulair a one a day pill . I have been > taking > it for 3 years now and it is totally wonderful.i can now excercise and do > almost any type of outdoor activity without using my albuterol inhaler.i would > state the since i started taking singulair i have had to use my inhaler mybe 5 > times in the 3 years. i highly reccommend.i don’t want to sound like a > commercial but would rather help a few people maybe try it and see the > difference . ps.it’s a non-steroid pill..thanks
I second your advice to at least try Singulair (just a satisfied consumer). It will not work for everyone, but is worth a try since if it does help, it is great. — — Lou Pecora – My views are my own.
Response:
i have similar results, but others have posted that they had no results or effect did not last.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I was diagnosed with mild asthma in ny I moved down south to florida and was by > my new specialist introduced to singulair a one a day pill . I have been taking > it for 3 years now and it is totally wonderful.i can now excercise and do > almost any type of outdoor activity without using my albuterol inhaler.i would > state the since i started taking singulair i have had to use my inhaler mybe 5 > times in the 3 years. i highly reccommend.i don’t want to sound like a > commercial but would rather help a few people maybe try it and see the > difference . ps.it’s a non-steroid pill..thanks
Response:
> i have similar results, but others have posted that they had no results or > effect did not last.
My understanding is that the division is rougly 1/3 1/3 1/3, that is 1/3 get quick, lasting almost full relief of asthma symptoms 1/3 get some relief or it does not last 1/3 experience no help Still looks like good enough odds to be worth a try to me. — — Lou Pecora – My views are my own.
Response:
Related Posts