Known Human Carcinogens - Azathioprine

[Gunnhild]

I'm convinced that one day this approach will be seen as blood letting once was. I also feel that the slowness to set up trials of Faecal Microbial Transplantation is because researches have too much investment in their pet projects.:stinks:

International Agency for Research on Cancer
Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans
Acetaldehyde (from consuming alcoholic beverages)
Acid mists, strong inorganic
Aflatoxins
Alcoholic beverages
Aluminum production
4-Aminobiphenyl
Areca nut
Aristolochic acid (and plants containing it)
Arsenic and inorganic arsenic compounds
Asbestos (all forms) and mineral substances (such as talc or vermiculite) that contain asbestos
Auramine production
Azathioprine
Benzene
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/generalinformationaboutcarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens

 

[SMSIRL]

IMURAN is indeed a potant drug best avoided if possible. However, many of the drugs used in the treatment of IBD have similar negative profiles. Furthermore, it will only be with proper fundamental research that identifies the exact causes and mechanism in IBD that appropriately targeted treatment/cures can be developed. Sadly, the financial benefits that accrue from the use of treatments rather than cures means that this sort of research is underfunded.

I Highly recommend the book "bad pharma" by goldcare which discusses the difficults facing all of us who are dependent on such research. As a researcher myself, I have been at the coalface and found research/publication/and trials to be extremely negatively impacted by financial and reputational needs of pharma and my fellow academics

With respect to Imuran - I tried repeatedly to place data on its carcinogenic nature in various web fora, only to find that pharma heads [i traced ip addresses] removed that information. It is only now, when biologics are their major revenue streams that the imuran issue is getting a fair hearing - indeed, it is being blamed as a cofactor increaing cancers in those on biologics. The sites that once deleted that information, now carries it unchallenged

Unfortunately, because of the dangers of IDB itself, and while it would be preferably to have appropriate research done and target treatments available, most people will have to use the less than appropriate treatments currently available.

 

[Gunnhild]

I have been off Azathioprine for almost a year and am instead on Pink (humira); I have just been for a biopsy of an auricular lymph node and find out in a couple of days if it is cancer,
I find it hard to believe that the risks (percentages) are as low as they say, at present my skin has no oil and oil is a protectorant produced by the immune system. I'm reminded of the battle of Britain... with fewer air defences.

 

[SMSIRL]

Gunnhild, sorry to hear of your concerning situation. I hope things go well, and it turns out to be something easily resolved.

Lest you concern yourself over the choices in your treatment, we aren't really awash with alternatives at the momement - We really do need to do the fundamental research.

With respect to percentages, it is always hard to know the real values as there are numerous factors that hide actual causal patterns. Unfortunately, the dice are stacked against trying to get actual values. Data is witheld by manufacturers. THere are often contractual gagging provisions on researchers etc.

Therefore, it is very important that doctors fill in the appropriate adverse reaction forms etc, and that regulators actually read them. I know personally of a particular drug that had numerous reports from doctors that were never evaluated (read ) by the regulators. The story was covered by the BBC some years ago. If they had evaluated the data, they would have highlighted issues with the evidence presented to regulators to get the drug accepted. Doctors often say that they don't know that it is a adverse event caused by drug X, however, that is not really for them to decide. It is only when all case histories and data pertaining to drugs used can the causal factors really be determined for the population as a whole.

I also found a couple years ago a paper by a doctor saying how a new drugs was great and found to be very effective - much more effective than an older drug which was as inefffective as doing nothing. However, in looking into the research that established the older drugs usefulness, I found a paper by the same doctor saying how very effective the old drug was! I'll keep the rest of that story for another day, however, the doctor had corporate relationships which would leave him open to conflict of interest.


Keeping you in my thoughts.