Ageism and drug safety

The Need for Drug Safety-the Older Person and Ageism grabbed me when it came across my desk through the Badgeraginglist. The listserv is a wonderful source of information for professionals in aging, and the source of many reports the Milwaukee Aging Consortium describes in our newsreel or information links.

Drug safety is not just an abstract good idea to me: it’s personal.

At Christmastime, my 87-year-old mother’s slow deterioration accelerated. It turns out that one of the prime causes was prescription medication toxicity. Another was electrolyte imbalance, a medication side-effect.

I haven’t looked at the bill yet to see what this episode cost in dollars. I won’t try to figure in the days lost from work and from our children for my sister and me. But I have a good sense of what it cost in pain and suffering, not just for my mother but for all of us.

The issue brief from the International Longevity Center-USA points to problems resulting from rapid approval of new medications and the lack of long-term “postmarketing surveillance”—research on what happens to 30,000 users, not just the 3,000 studied before release to the market. In 2007, the report says, the pharmaceutical industry “conducted only 7% of the studies they had promised.”

Drug problems affect older people disproportionately. Only 12% of the population, they use 40% of all prescription medicine. Physiologically, older people process drugs differently. They have the most problems with drug interactions. And yet there is no requirement that older people be included in clinical drug studies.

Report author Robert Butler, MD, uses some strong language: “Because medicines in the United States are disproportionately used by older persons, we must conclude that failures in drug safety are due in part to the belief that older persons, having lived their lives, are expendable. This is a manifestation of ageism.”

The brief calls for significantly increasing FDA funding and power to monitor drugs on the market and in older adults. The up-front cost, Butler says, “will likely save time, energy, and money, not to mention lengthening and improving the quality of lives.”

After a couple months of emergency rooms, hospitalization, skilled nursing facility stays, and rehabilitation, Mom's doing beautifully in an assisted living facility. In fact, she’s doing better than before. I wonder if, had her primary physician been monitoring her better, she could have stayed in independent living. But that’s a moot point now.

We’d love to hear your responses, ideas, experiences. Please comment here or send a message to cmclaughlin@milwagingconsortium.org.