People with the condition have abnormally inflexible ventricles, the heart’s major pumping chambers, that do not fill sufficiently with blood.

This leads to blood ”backing up” in the lungs and breathing difficulties.

Scientists found that Viagra activates an enzyme that causes a protein in heart muscle cells to relax.

The effect was seen in dogs with diastolic heart failure within minutes of the drug being administered.

Study leader Professor Wolfgang Linke, from the Ruhr Universitat Bochum (RUB) in Germany, said: ”We have developed a therapy in an animal model that, for the first time, also raises hopes for the successful treatment of patients.”

Viagra has a similar effect on blood vessels, which is why it was originally developed as a treatment for high blood pressure and heart disease.

The drug’s active ingredient, sildenafil, inhibits an enzyme involved in the mechanism that regulates blood flow.  However, the enzyme is slightly different in different parts of the body.

The British scientists behind Viagra found to their initial disappointment that it was not a great help to patients with high blood pressure. But it had a miraculous effect on men with erectile dysfunctin.

The drug successfully suppressed the enzyme phosphodiesterase (PDE) in the penis, increasing blood flow to the organ.

Prof Linke’s team found that it worked on the same enzyme in heart cells. This had the effect of causing a cardiac muscle protein called titin to become more elastic.

”The titin molecules are similar to rubber bands,” said the professor. ”They contribute decisively to the stiffness of cardiac walls.”

The research was initially published in the journal Circulation of the American Heart Association.

Almost half of emergency patients admitted to hospital with heart failure have a diastolic condition.

Various medical conditions can cause the ventricles to become ”stiff”. They include high blood pressure, blocked arteries, and cardiomyopathy heart disorders.

Sildenafil is already being tested on heart failure patients taking part in the Relax trial in the US.

Patients with hypertension, or chronic high blood pressure, are often given drugs to lower their risk of heart disease and stroke but the medication could also benefit a wider group of patients.

An analysis of 16 studies, covering 70,664 patients, found that treating 169 prehypertensive people with blood pressure-lowering medication for 4.3 years would prevent one stroke from happening.

High blood pressure is the biggest risk factor for stroke, and an estimated 40 per cent of strokes could be prevented if people took steps to control their blood pressure levels.

US data shows that about 10 per cent of Americans have prehypertension, with a blood pressure between 120/80mm Hg and 139/89mm Hg – higher than the upper boundary of “normal” but below the lower limit of hypertension.

Ilke Sipahi of the Harrington-McLaughlin Heart and Vascular Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, who led the study, published in the Stroke journal, said patients would be better off trying to lower their blood pressure through a healthy diet and physical activity than by taking pills.

He said: “We do not think that giving blood pressure medicine instead of implementing the lifestyle changes is the way to go … however, the clear-cut reduction in the risk of stroke with blood pressure pills is important and may be complementary to lifestyle changes.”

Dr Sharlin Ahmed of The Stroke Association said: “Making a few simple lifestyle choices, such as eating a healthy diet low in salt, giving up smoking, and exercising regularly can help to keep your blood pressure under control and can reduce your risk of stroke.

“As highlighted in this study, it may also be beneficial for some people with borderline high blood pressure to take blood pressure lowering medication, however this needs to be discussed with your GP.”

Dr Guthrie, a member of the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health, was concerned that women could take the pill during these days and wrongly think they would avoid pregnancy.

She said: “There’s very clear evidence showing that it’s not effective in the couple of days running up to ovulation, and probably not very effective in the 36 hours afterwards.”

The aim of the bpas scheme is to cut the number of women seeking abortions over the festive season.

The idea is that women will be able to pop the pill on the morning after accidentally having unprotected sex, rather than having to get an appointment, which can be difficult over the Christmas break.

Part of the rationale is, as bpas puts it, “the sooner the morning after pill is taken after unprotected sex, the more effective it is.”

Dr Guthrie, who works in East Yorkshire, agreed with that, saying that Levonelle should always be taken within 72 hours of sex.

However, she was concerned that women would not be sufficiently informed of Levonelle’s limitations.

While she welcomed immediate access to emergency contraception, she said: “You have to know how effective or ineffective it is.”

Guidance from the faculty, published this August, states that Levonelle “has been shown to be no better than placebo at suppressing ovulation when given immediately prior to ovulation, and is not thought to be effective once the process of fertilisation has occurred”.

Dr Guthrie said that, if a woman has had unprotected sex at this time of the menstrual cycle, she should see a doctor about obtaining another form of emergency contraception.

It wants the Department of Health in England to carry out the first proper review of drinking guidance in more than 15 years, which should follow the example of Scotland in recommending two “dry” days a week.

The MPs also want new rules on what would count as a dangerous night of “binge-drinking”, new lower safe levels for older people and a website where people can work out individual intake based on their age, weight and family history.

They say few people understand what constitutes an alcoholic unit, the basis of the drinking advice, and tell ministers that the guidelines do not seem to change behaviour.

Although the Committee’s report concedes that the drinks industry is needed to help improve labelling on bottles and glasses, it warns of potential conflicts of interest if the Government works too closely with brewers and shops.

Andrew Miller, the Committee’s chairman, said: “Alcohol guidelines are a crucial tool for Government in its effort to combat excessive and problematic drinking. It is vital that they are up-to date and that people know how to use them.

“Unfortunately, public understanding of how to use the guidelines and what an alcohol unit looks like is poor, although improving.

“While we urge the UK Health Departments to re-evaluate the guidelines more thoroughly, the evidence we received suggests that the guidelines should not be increased and that people should be advised to take at least two drink-free days a week.”

The MPs’ report, published on Monday following public hearings and written submissions last year, states that the first Government health advice on sensible drinking was not published until the 1980s.

Originally, the public were told that men could safely have 18 “standard drinks” a week and women half that number, while in 1987 this was revised in favour of weekly “sensible limits” of 21 units for men and 14 for women.

Medical research later suggested that moderate daily alcohol intake could be good for the health, by lowering levels of bad cholesterol in the blood, while giving weekly limits could “mask episodes of heavy drinking”. In 1995, therefore, daily limits were introduced that recommended men should not drink more than three to four units a day, and women two to three.

Some experts, however, raised concerns that this switch from weekly to daily limits appeared to increase the weekly “allowance” of alcohol while also appearing to “endorse daily drinking”.

The MPs say more recent studies have cast doubt on the health benefits of regular drinking, and recommend that England follows Scotland’s lead in urging “at least two alcohol-free days a week”.

They back current specific advice for children and pregnant women, and say “there could be merit” in producing new rules for older people as well as limits for “individual drinking episodes”, but find no evidence for increasing current general safe limits.

The Committee says an expert group, including civil servants as well as scientists, should review current evidence on the health effects of alcohol in order to “increase public confidence”.

They say people should be made aware of the difference between the short-term effects of binge drinking and the long term harm caused by alcoholism, and should be helped to understand how many units are in different drinks.

The figures for last year represent an 11 per cent increase on the previous 12 months, when alcohol-related admissions stood at 1,056,962.

Separate information published by Anne Milton, the public health minister, showed that since January an estimated 7,074 under-18s have been admitted to hospital due to alcohol abuse.

A recent report predicted that binge drinking will cost the NHS £3.8 billion by 2015, with 1.5 million A&E admissions a year.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, blamed Labour’s 24-hour drinking policy and accused the last government of “taking their eye of the ball” on the issue of binge drinking.

He said: “These figures are disturbing evidence that, despite total consumption of alcohol not increasing recently, we have serious problems with both binge-drinking and long-term excessive alcohol abuse in a minority of people.

“Our alcohol strategy, which we will set out in the new year, will outline what further steps we are taking to tackle this growing problem.”

Recent Local Alcohol Profiles for England figures also show that the number of hospital admissions for conditions attributable to alcohol are rising at a similar rate.

The number of admissions has more than doubled since 2002/03 and increased by nine per cent last year.

In 2002/03 there were 926 admissions per 100,000 people for conditions caused by alcohol, rising to 1,743 per 100,000 in 2009/10 and 1,898 last year.

The biggest increase over the past 12 months was in London, with a jump in admissions of 14 per cent, followed by the East of England with 10 per cent.

The Prime Minister will say that the controversial industry has the potential to be a powerhouse of Britain’s 21st century economy, but that it is stifled by excessive regulation at present.

Speaking to Sky News, Mr Burnham said that while he did not object in principle to close ties between the NHS and private sector life science companies, he was concerned that “one of the patients’ groups that was on the working group looking at this issue has walked away”.

“That gives real cause for concern and rings alarm bells” he said. “The Government simply can’t say: ‘This is all red tape and it all must be brushed away’”.

“Proper regulation, essential safeguards need to be in place when it comes to the use of patient data.”

The move, which will give life science companies more freedom to run clinical trials inside hospitals, is likely to face a backlash from privacy campaigners who have consistently opposed private companies being given access to medical records.

There will be particular opposition from animal rights activists who object vehemently, and sometimes violently, to vivisection, while religious groups, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, could object to firms that use stem cells harvested from embryos being allowed access to NHS data.

One senior executive at a leading drugs company well-known for using animal testing said: “You can look at the NHS as one massive database with 60 million people in it.”

The Prime Minister will stress that greater integration between private companies and the NHS could advance medical science, give patients greater access to cutting-edge treatments and save money, while boosting economic growth.

With Britain teetering on the brink of a double-dip recession, ministers are keen to show that they have a positive vision of the future.

“Britain has the potential to become a powerhouse in the world’s life sciences industry,” said a Downing Street source this weekend.

“We want to see much closer collaboration between the NHS and life science companies — not just greater data-sharing, but more clinical trials in hospitals.

“These changes will not only boost the industry, but also potentially give the NHS early access to new, innovative drugs treatments.”

Welcoming the move, Andrew Witty, the chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, said: “Any action the Government takes to improve the environment in this country for life science across these activities is welcome.”

Britain is considered uniquely placed to become a world leader in life sciences because of the strength of scientific research at its top universities and the amount of data and expertise amassed by the NHS since its creation in 1948.

The industry already employs about 160,000 people in 4,500 companies, ranging from large multinationals to small businesses.

These firms employ highly skilled researchers with PhDs down to lower-skilled workers in drugs manufacturing plants.

Whether such companies would be charged for access to NHS records was not clear.

Although personal information should be anonymised, the public sector has an appauling history of handling the personal details of citizens.

Numerous health trusts have been criticised for losing patient records in recent years and HM Revenue & Customs has previously lost the financial records of millions of taxpayers.

Privacy campaigners led a vigorous campaign against the previous Labour government’s plans to place every medical record on a central electronic database.

It is understood that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency would oversee the sharing of NHS data with businesses.

Joyce Robins, from Patient Concern, said many people would be “deeply disturbed” by the notion that their private medical records could be handed to firms seeking new markets.

“Even when they say records will be anonymised, the amount of detail contained in medical records means that companies may be able to find ways to target people with particular conditions,” she said.

“This data is absolutely private; it is not the Government’s to give.”

Health Direct has long warned that patients’ personal data security.

If the Government is genuine in their desire to speed up drug development- they ought to cut red tape.

10 years ago 10% of all new drugs developed in the world were tested in the UK. Since labour created the killer quango National Institute for Curbing Expenditure (NICE) this figure that fallen to only 3%.

Either they die of a slow disease, like cirrhosis of the liver, or the booze can kill them there and then by poisoning them, depressing their central nervous system until everything stops.

Why did it have to be so called illegal drugs that killed her?

As an example of acute alcohol poisoning, I mentioned (in a blog I wrote that day) the sudden death of Dylan Thomas: his post mortem pointed to “insult to the brain”, caused by alcohol. Supposedly, Thomas had drunk 18 straight whiskies, which is about 36 single measures of whisky in British terms.

Winehouse’s friends had spoken of her having been so drunk, earlier that week in July, that she couldn’t stand. Later her boyfriend, Reg Traviss, and members of her family made it clear she had not taken illicit drugs for some time.

Today the coroner has spoken: the poor singer’s blood contained 416mg of alcohol per decilitre*. “The unintended consequences of such potentially fatal levels,” said the coroner, “was her sudden and unexpected death.”

Professor Suhail Baithun, a Home Office pathologist, said people start losing their faculties at 200mg of alcohol per decilitre, and “when you have levels of 350mg, it is associated with fatalities”.

Why do we always assume illicit drugs are responsible in these sudden deaths? Sometimes they are, obviously. But I also think we blame drugs because they’re strange and frightening, and we don’t like to think of booze like that, we don’t like to think of it as deadly stuff.

Booze is supposed to be our friend, it’s part of our culture, it helps us to relax. Many of us couldn’t cope with life’s daily challenges without it. It is, in the words of those bossy health education campaigns of old, “our favourite drug”.

We prefer not to think about what it can be — a strong poison that kills in overdose.

*This has been expressed in most news reports as five times the drink-drive limit. In Britain the drink-driving limit is normally given in milligrams per 100 millilitres (one deciliter) of blood, or, most commonly, in micrograms per 100 millilitres of breath. The drink-driving limit is 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. It’s certainly a lot of alcohol.

From: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/amy-winehouse-was-killed-by-alcohol-our-favourite-drug/

He told MPs there should be two types of limit, one which dictates how much people can safely drink “on average” and one which should “stipulate an amount that should never be exceeded”.

The Department of Health previously stated that men and women should not exceed 21 and 18 units of alcohol per week respectively.

It now advises men should not “regularly” exceed three to four units of alcohol per day, with women not drinking on average more than two or three units, but people still mistakenly believe they can store up their alcohol allowance by abstaining during the week and consume excessive amounts on Friday and Saturday nights.

Prof Heather told MPs that there is a key distinction between chronic illness caused by regular heavy drinking and the injuries resulting from drunkenness after binge drinking.

As well as advising how much alcohol people can safely drink on a regular basis health authorities ought to specify that no more than eight units should be consumed in a single day, equivalent to about three 175ml glasses of wine or four pints of lager, he suggested.

He said: “The form that guidelines should take should be this, for example. Men should not drink more than X units per week, probably 21, and never more than Y units in a day, which might be eight, and as well there should be at least two days of abstinence.

“We should revert to the old weekly limits for the average guideline and have another daily limit which would never be exceeded on any day.”

Senior medical experts urged the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, which is examining the evidence on alcohol guidelines, not to raise the current recommended drinking limits.

Prof Sir Ian Gilmore, Royal College of Physicians special adviser on alcohol and chairman of Alcohol Health Alliance UK, said the “tide of harm” in Britain’s hospitals made it imperitave alcohol levels do not rise.

He said: “As someone who still looks after people with liver disease, and with hospital admissions rising, I think that any recommendation to increase limits would add to the tide of harm that we are seeing in our hospitals every day.  Given the burden of harm that we’ve got, it’s vital that levels are not increased at this point.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/doctors-call-for-separate-daily-and-weekly-drinking-limits

The steepest decline was in the under 30 age group.

The number of people accessing treatment for all drugs also fell for the second year running.

The latest figures also show an increase in the number of drug users “recovering” from addiction – people who no longer need treatment.

Some 27,969 users were classed as recovering in 2010/11, a rise of 18% on the previous year and 150% higher than 11,208 in 2005/06.

The figures showed that, of the 255,556 people who entered a drugs treatment programme since April 2005 for the first time, 28% (71,887) had successfully completed the course and did not need further treatment.

Paul Hayes, the NTA’s chief executive, said the figures showed that “recovery is now becoming a reality for more individuals each year.  More drug users are recovering from addiction, fewer need treatment, and more are getting over their addiction quickly.”

Mr Hayes went on to say he thought the figures showed England had “probably passed the high watermark of the impact of epidemic of the late ’80s and early ’90s and that younger groups of people were reluctant to begin patterns of behaviour… that they’ve seen cause damage to their older siblings, people in their community, sometimes, sadly their mums and dads.”

“They realise the consequences of heroin and crack use and they’re turning their backs on that,” he said.

He said officials were also seeing “significant declines in purity” which “suggests that attempts to restrict supply are having an impact”.

“It’s extremely likely, from where we sit, that the different aspects of the government’s drugs strategy are coming together to have a positive effect,” he added.

But he warned that addiction remained a “serious problem” for many communities, particularly the poorest ones.

“We need to remain vigilant, particularly in a tough economic climate. There’s absolutely no inevitability that rising unemployment among young people will see a rise to ’80s levels of heroin use, but we need to watch that situation very carefully,” he said.

The research can be found at: http://www.nta.nhs.uk/news-2011-annual-report.aspx

The advice on alcohol limits is too confusing according to Debbie Bannigan the head of the charity Swanswell. 

In this week’s Scrubbing Up, she says that to have a daily “safe” amount is misleading and that some people – including pregnant women and drivers – should be told “no alcohol is best”.

Most people think they have a rough idea of “how much is too much?”, but ask them for specifics and they’re not sure. Who can blame them, when the measure that is used to define safe limits – ‘units’ – is so hard to understand?

While 82% of adults claim to know what a unit of alcohol is, 77% don’t know how many units are in a typical large glass of wine.

Ironically, ‘units’ become even harder to compute when we’ve had a drink, because the part of our brain that works that sort of thing out switches off.

And the concept of a daily safe amount may even encourage the idea that we should drink alcohol every day.

To add to the confusion, we’re bombarded with new “scientific” findings about alcohol.

In the last couple of months alone, we’ve been told that alcohol damages the DNA of unborn children beyond repair, but that it’s OK for pregnant women to have a couple of glasses of wine a week, which is pretty conflicting advice.

Reported health benefits from alcohol are rarely balanced with information about the risks, or the observation that the benefits can be achieved in other ways that don’t carry any significant risks at all.

It’s little surprise that people are confused about the impact alcohol can have on their lives.

But walk into any supermarket and you’ll be encouraged to buy alcohol.

My local supermarket’s “seasonal aisle” – one of the first things you see when you enter the store – has become a wine festival.

And the end of each aisle – the “impulse buy” space – is also stacked with cans of lager and cider, so selecting and purchasing alcohol is just part of the weekly shop rather than something that we have to think about doing.

The people who come to us for help are just like you and me, but they’ve found that their choice to drink alcohol has been riskier than they expected.

What can be done about it? Official guidelines could be clearer. Other public health messages are short and snappy, like ‘clunk-click every trip’ or ‘catch it bin it kill it’. We shouldn’t be afraid of setting clear guidelines and sticking to them”

They are designed to be simple and memorable, so we learn and apply them without trying.

Units don’t work this way, but a simple phrase like ‘one or two, once or twice’ gives us a simple yardstick that drinking one or two alcoholic drinks, once or twice a week, is a good limit.

Sometimes a clear, easy to understand and safe message is that no alcohol is best – for example, for children, in pregnancy or when driving.

Scientific evidence shows that even one drink can impair judgement when driving and that alcohol affects children disproportionately, especially before they are born.

A zero limit for drivers, pregnant women and children avoids confusion and helps us all to take responsibility.  We shouldn’t be afraid of setting clear guidelines and sticking to them.

With co-operation between drinks manufacturers, supermarkets and the government we can judge the risk of alcohol use for ourselves.

Not only can we reach the point where hospital admissions are going down instead of up, we can create a society that is free from problem alcohol use altogether.

Tests on laboratory mice have shown that the drug is highly effective at attacking tumours from a range of human diseases such as sarcomas and cancers of the breast, colon, lung and prostate.

The drug is also designed to target solid tumours directly, leaving healthy tissue unaffected, according to Professor Laurance Patterson, director of Bradford University’s Institute for Cancer Therapeutics.

“What we’ve designed is, effectively, a ‘smart bomb’ that can be targeted directly at any solid tumour to kill it without appearing to harm healthy tissue,” Professor Patterson said.

“What is also new about our approach is that we are effectively targeting the blood supply of the tumour,” he said. “If you can starve the tumour of that blood supply, then you can shut off its ability to grow and, indeed, you also shut off its ability to move around the body.”

The drug is well known as having anti-cancer properties, but is normally toxic to healthy cells and so has had limited potential in medicine.

The trick used by the Bradford scientists is to attach colchicine to another molecule that renders the drug inactive until it comes into contact with a one of a class of enzymes called matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), which are used uniquely by tumours to burrow into the body’s healthy tissue, said Kevin Adams of the Bradford institute.

“The drug is inactive until triggered by the activity of an enzyme that is always found in the tumour environment but not elsewhere. Triggering releases a potent, anti-cancer agent which destroys the tumour’s blood vessels, effectively starving the tumours to death, a process known as haemorrhagic necrosis,” Dr Adams said. Tests on specially bred mice that have human cancerous tumours have shown that the drug and its delivery system can have a “cure rate” of greater than 70 per cent after a single dose, he said. Four different cancers have been treated and the animals suffered no adverse effects.

The next stage is a phase 1 clinical trial to test its initial safety, which is hoped to be conducted within 18 months at St James’s University Hospital in Leeds.

From: http://www.independent.co.uk/crocus-offers-scientists-hope-in-the-battle-against-cancer

Middle aged women who indulge in an alcoholic drink or two a day are boosting their chance of good health in their seventies, a new study claims.

A study of 14,000 female nurses found that those who frequently drank one to two drinks a night, but no more, had a 30 per cent better chance of overall good health in their seventies than those who avoided alcohol altogether.

Drinking moderate amounts of alcohol on a nightly basis was shown to be healthier than indulging just once or twice a week.

Women who drank on five to seven nights a week enjoyed a 50 per cent better chance of good health in later life than teetotallers.

Writing in the Public Library of Science journal, the researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston said their work showed that “regular, moderate consumption of alcohol” in their fifties could boost overall health among women who survive into their seventies.

Experts cautioned that the study did not prove that alcohol is good for the body and claimed the results could have been down to other lifestyle factors.

Associate Prof Jayne Lucke of the University of Queensland, Australia, said: “Drinking a small amount of alcohol may not cause women to age healthily.

“Rather women who regularly drink a small amount may also have a number of other characteristics, such as good health, an active social life and a healthy appetite, that all work together to promote successful ageing.”

NHS guidelines state that women should not regularly drink more than two or three units of alcohol a day, equal to one and a half standard 175ml glasses of wine or one pint of lager.

A study published last year by researchers in Paris indicated that moderate drinkers had lower rates of heart disease, obesity and depression than people who were teetotal.

The new findings showed that even drinking small amounts of alcohol can have a significant impact on health in later life.

The American researchers measured alcohol intake in grams rather than units, with a glass of wine equal to about 10g and a bottle of beer including 13g.

The results showed that women with an average age of 58 who drank between 5 and 15g per night had a 20 per cent better chance of good health than non-drinkers, while those who drank 15g to 30g were 30 per cent more likely to be healthy in old age.

Dr Qi Sun, who led the study, said: “Low to moderate consumption of alcohol will slightly improve health for women in old age. We would still only recommend regular consumption of one drink per day because that is what the US health guidelines are.”

But European guidelines are slightly higher and previous British studies have that as many as two drinks a night can have a positive health effect, he said.

Dr Sun added: “Even at moderate drinking levels it is highly recommended that you consume alcohol on a regular basis rather than binge drinking at the weekend.

“But for lifetime non-drinkers we would not recommend drinking alcohol just to improve health, because studies have shown that regular exercise and healthy body weight are much more associated with better health at old age than alcohol.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Daily-tipple-boosts-health-in-old-age

There was enormous excitement among Britain’s 100,000 MS sufferers in January when EU drugs regulators gave fingolimod preliminary marketing approval.

Novartis, which markets fingolimod under the brand name Gilenya, subsequently applied for it to be prescribed on the NHS in situations where existing drugs do not work.

To receive these drugs, called interferon therapy, patients either have to self-inject every few days or go to hospital for supervised infusions.

A trial, published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that fingolimod halved the number of disabling relapses compared with interferon beta.

However, the National Institute of Curbing Expenditure (Nice) has decided that – at £20,000 a year – fingolimod “would not be a cost effective use of NHS resources”.

Prof Carole Longson from Nice said: “Unfortunately our independent committee wasn’t given sufficient evidence to show that fingolimod could reduce relapses considerably better than the other treatments currently being used.”

MS charities last night said the decision was “disappointing”.

Simon Gillespie, chief executive of the MS Society, warned: “It will leave some people with no effective treatment option.”

He added: “Access to MS treatments in the UK is very poor – in fact people with MS would be better off living almost anywhere else in Europe, and this decision will only deepen that inequality.”

The German health service is already paying for 2,000 people to receive fingolimod for highly active relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS).

Fingolimod is an immumosuppressant and, while it is well tolerated by most patients, it does have side effects in some.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/MS-pill-rejected-as-too-costly-by-Nice.html

Critics believe it is evidence that the Coalition is pandering to the interests of the drinks industry, potentially at the expense of the nation’s health.

Some nine million people in Britain suffer from the harms of alcohol in some, either directly or indirectly, while the cost to the NHS stands at £2.7 billion a year.

Don Shenker, chief executive of the charity Alcohol Concern, believed companies were being allowed a bigger say in “setting the agenda” under the Coalition.

Speaking of the changes to the working group “I can only imagine it’s because this government believes that the drinks industry has a big role to play in shaping policy, in setting the agenda.

“And so they have extended the invitations to a larger set of people from the drinks industry.”

However, Anne Milton, the Public Health Minister, claimed ignorance of the body.

She said: “I think we have a communications problem in Whitehall because you know something that I have never heard of before.”

In opposition David Cameron talked tough on alcohol abuse, and the Conservatives’ manifesto said the party would ban off-licences and supermarkets from selling alcohol below cost price.

In January the Coalition announced that retailers would be banned from selling drinks for less than the value of duty and VAT.

But they will not have to take into account the cost of producing the drinks, meaning they will still be able to sell drinks at a net loss.

The Coalition has pursued an approach of working with industry, arguing it will be more effective than legislation.

However, in March eight organisations pulled out of the Coalition’s Public Health Responsibility Deal – including Alcohol Concern, the Institute of Alcohol Studies and the British Liver Trust.

They wrote to Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, saying the deal on alcohol – which includes voluntary agreements with industry – would not help reduce illness or deaths.

At the time Mr Lansley said imposing laws was often “costly” and they could “take years” to implement.

A spokesman for the Department of Health yesterday re-iterated that argument.

She did not deny that changes to the working group had been made.

The spokesman said: “We are committed to challenging the assumption that the only way to change people’s behaviour is through adding to rules and regulations.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Alcohol-advisory-body-stacked-with-drinks-industry-lobbyists

But it says plans to reward groups which treat addicts so they can return to work are open to manipulation.

The Department of Health said it aimed to get users “off drugs for good”.

The coalition government wants to change the way drug addiction is tackled, with more people with problems diverted away from prison and into treatment as part of what it calls a “rehabilitation revolution”.

Part of this involves rewarding treatment providers who show addicts have improved their health and employment prospects.

A report from the right-of-centre think tank, which has links to the Conservative Party, says these payment by results schemes were being run by the very organisations “responsible for the current failure of policy”.

It says the current annual cost of maintaining treatment for 320,000 problem drug users is made up of £1.7bn in benefits, £1.2bn for looking after their children and £730m for prescribing the heroin substitute methadone.

Kathy Gyngell, Centre of Policy Studies: “The Department of Health has been paying 153,000 people to be on methadone”

The think tank calls for “a real transfer of power from large distant organisations to small innovative providers” for rehabilitation.

It says such units have a better chance of getting addicts off drugs completely, adding: “There is one simple measure of success: That of six months abstinence from drugs.”

According to the report’s author Kathy Gyngell, chairwoman of the prisons and addictions policy forum at the CPS, prescribing methadone to addicts delays their recovery.

She told the BBC: “The state is subsidising people to be any number of years on methadone, which has turned out not to be a cheap option and will only subsidise the tiniest proportion – 2% – to go into a rehabilitation unit that would actually free them from dependency and allow them to live their life.”

A Department of Health spokesman said: “The 2010 Drug Strategy is fundamentally different from those that have gone before.

“Instead of focusing primarily on reducing the harms caused by drug misuse, our approach will be to go much further and offer every support for people to choose recovery as an achievable way out of dependence.”

He added: “Work is under way to support local recovery systems tailored to the needs of communities, many of which are already showing positive results.”

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13826759

Health Direct has for a long time noted the costly failure that is the current policy on drugs. On August 02, 2006 in Risks of taking drugs compared- Scientific review of dangers of drugtaking- Drugs, the real deal

we reproduced the first ranking based upon scientific evidence of harm to both individuals and society.

It was devised by government advisers – then ignored by ministers because of its controversial findings.

The analysis was carried out by David Nutt, the then senior member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and Colin Blakemore, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council.
http://www.healthdirect.co.uk/2006/08/risks-of-taking-drugs-compared.html

The programme has investigated the issue of legal highs, more than a year after the drug mephedrone, or meow meow, was banned.

Legal highs are substances that are manufactured in a laboratory which do not fall under the current legislation of banned substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act, according to Dr Mohan Da Silva, lead clinician for charity Kaleidoscope Wales.

Undercover recording has found shops breaking the law by selling some of these drugs for human consumption.

Mr Andrews, managing director of Chooselife, said: “It’s becoming a bigger problem than illegal drugs because… the message ‘legal’ means safe, which it’s not.

He said some of the legal high drugs “are stronger, more potent than the illegal drugs and it’s quite scary. There’s a generation of young people who are being sold a lie that legal means safe.”

“There has been a lot of talk about whether things are appropriately classified and I think the development of these new compounds at the rate they’re being developed probably warrants a second look at how we control all drugs,” he said.

Legal highs are not new but there are more of them and there are concerns they are getting more potent.

Last month the monitoring centre which records drug use across Europe said new highs were appearing at an “unprecedented” pace.

Some 41 new substances emerged in 2010, 16 of which were first reported in the UK.

The most high profile has been mephedrone, which has been linked to a number of young people’s deaths.

The UK government is planning to bring in temporary banning orders, to allow time for legal highs to be tested.

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13846006

Eight years ago Prof Sir Nichlas Wald, who demonstrated that passive smoking causes cancer, proposed the polypill in an article in the British Medical Journal.

He wrote that such an easy-to-take pill could significantly reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease, which is Britain’s biggest killer, accounting for almost 200,000 deaths a year.

Taking such a preventive pill should be as automatic as “brushing your teeth”, he later suggested.

Now the first international polypill study, published and part funded by the Wellcome Trust, has suggested it could be extremely effective.

The researchers examined data from 378 people with a raised risk of cardiovascular disease. Half were given the polypill and half the placebo. About a third of the participants were British, a third Dutch and a third Indian.

Specifically, systolic blood pressure was reduced from a pre-trial average of 134 mmHg to 124; while ‘bad’ LDL cholesterol came down from 3.7 mmol/L to 2.9.

Doctors use mmHg as a standard unit for measuring blood pressure, while mmol/L – millimoles per litre – is used as a measurement unit for very low concentrations of substances in blood.

Cardiologists know that having high blood pressure and cholesterol raises the chances of cardiovascular events, and are able to estimate how much reducing these factors decreases that risk.

The researchers calculated that the polypill would roughly halve the incidence of major cardiovascular events in people with similar risk profiles to the participants.

Writing in the journal Public Library of Science One, they concluded that the benefits to those at a high risk would be even greater: “Overall about one in four high risk people would be predicted to avoid a major event over five years.”

Prof Anthony Rodgers of the George Institute for Global Health in Australia, who led the study, said: “The results show a halving in heart disease and stroke can be expected for people taking this polypill long-term. We are really excited about this – it is a step closer to providing the polypill to patients.”

It has long been known that taking aspirin and statins separately reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but this is one of the first studies examining taking them in a combined pill.

It contains 75mg aspirin, 20mg simvastatin, 10mg lisinopril and 12.5mg hydrochlorothiazide. Aspirin prevents blood getting too ‘sticky’, which can lead to clots that cause heart attacks; statins lower cholesterol; while the latter two drugs lower blood pressure.

There were fears that the drugs could react in a pill while being stored, and cancel each other out, but the trial proved these were unfounded.

All four drugs are off patent, meaning any drugs company can manufacture them.

Prof Simon Thom, of Imperial College London, said the Indian pharmaceutical firm Dr Reddys had committed to make the polypill “as dirt cheaply as possible”.

The cost issue is particularly important in poorer and middle income countries, which are facing growing epidemics of ‘lifestyle’ diseases due to changing diets and people getting less exercise.

About 17 million people die of cardiovascular disease every year, 80 per cent of them in developing countries.

Prof Thom said in such countries the cost could be just £1.20 a month, with richer countries which were able to shoulder the economic burden paying more. Even so, the cost in Britain could be as low as £3 a month.

The case for the polypill has been given a powerful boost by British-led research, published in The Lancet last winter, showing that regularly taking low dose aspirin reduces the risk of certain cancers, including bowel cancer, by up to 50 per cent.

Prof Rodgers commented: “These benefits would take several years to ‘kick in’, but of course one of the hopes with a polypill is it helps people take medicines long-term.”

Two years ago Prof Roger Boyle, England’s heart disease ‘czar’, told MPs that he liked the “concept” but there were questions marks over safety. He also said there was a “fine line” between preventive medicine and “medicalising” the population.

Side effects are a big issue. Aspirin is known to aggravate the intestine and can cause internal bleeding, although most cases are minor.

This trial found that about one in 20 people stopped taking the polypill because of side effects, mainly due to such bleeding but also due to light-headedness caused by too low blood pressure.

Prof Rodgers said it was highly unlikely that all middle aged and elderly people would be offered a polypill in the future, but that it could be allocated to those with a higher risk of heart disease, stroke and certain cancers.

That could feasibly be one in five people over 30, perhaps more.

Dr Lorna Layward, from The Stroke Association, said: “Many people with high blood pressure and high cholesterol are required to take multiple pills every day in order to reduce their risk.

“Calculating when each pill needs to be taken can often be confusing and so combining the pills into one could make taking the medication much simpler.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/10p-polypill-halves-heart-disease-and-stroke-risk

That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries.

The Department of Health will publish a new alcohol strategy later this year.

The number of admissions reached 1,057,000 in 2009-10 compared with 945,500 in 2008-09 and 510,800 in 2002-03.

Earlier this year the charity Alcohol Concern predicted the number of admissions would reach 1.5m a year by 2015. It estimated that would cost the NHS £3.7bn a year.

Tim Straughan, chief executive of the NHS Information Centre, said: “Today’s report shows the number of people admitted to hospital each year for alcohol related problems has topped 1m for the first time.

“The report also highlights the increasing cost of alcohol dependency to the NHS as the number of prescription items dispensed continues to rise.

“This report provides health professionals and policy makers with a useful picture of the health issues relating to alcohol use and misuse. It also highlights the importance of policy makers and health professionals in recognising and tackling alcohol misuse which in turn could lead to savings for the NHS.”

Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, the chair of the UK Alcohol Health Alliance, said: “This confirms doctors’ impressions that the health harm from alcohol continues to rise.”

“While total alcohol consumption has fallen in recent years it is likely that the number of abstainers in England is increasing, but those who do drink continue to do so in a harmful and destructive way.”

The body which represents drinks manufacturers in the UK, the Portman Group, expressed surprise that admissions had increased at the same time as alcohol consumption had decreased.

David Poley, chief executive of the Portman Group, said: “If the hospital admissions data are robust, they clearly put paid to the argument that measures to reduce overall alcohol consumption are effective in reducing harm.

“The report shows that the proportion of people misusing alcohol is falling. We just need to find a way of persuading and educating this hard core of misusers who account for these admissions to drink responsibly.”

Alcohol Concern said the latest set of figures were alarming but that early detection of alcoholism contributed to the increase.

Its director of policy and communications, Nicolay Sorensen, said: “More people than ever before are drinking in a way that is harming their health and it’s a serious public health problem. It’s one of the biggest public health problems facing the country.

“In addition, the NHS has been doing some great work to identify people that have alcohol problems and so some of the increase is due to better identification and better referral.”

Public Health Minister Anne Milton said: “These statistics show that the old ways of tackling public health problems have not always yielded the necessary improvements.

“We are already taking action to tackle problem drinking, including plans to stop supermarkets selling below cost alcohol and working to introduce a tougher licensing regime.

“We will also be publishing a new alcohol strategy later this year.”

Rates of alcohol-related hospital admissions came down in the past two years in Scotland, after increasing for a decade. In Wales, figures for up to 2006 showed increasing admission rates and in Northern Ireland the total number of admissions increased year on year since 2006/07.

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13559455

For the first time, new regulations will allow only long-established and quality-controlled medicines to be sold.

But both herbal remedy practitioners and manufacturers fear they could be forced out of business.

To date, the industry has been covered by the 1968 Medicines Act, drawn up when only a handful of herbal remedies were available and the number of herbal practitioners was very small.

But surveys show that about a quarter of all adults in the UK have used a herbal medicine in the past two years, mostly bought over the counter in health food shops and pharmacies.

The regulations will cover widely used products such as echinacea, St John’s Wort and valerian, as well as traditional Chinese and Indian medicines.

But safety concerns have focused on the powerful effects of some herbal remedies, as well as the way they interact with conventional drugs.

For example, St John’s Wort can interfere with the contraceptive pill, while ginkgo and ginseng are known to have a similar effect to the blood-thinning drug warfarin.

From now on only products that have been assessed by the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) will be allowed to go on sale.

Manufacturers will have to prove that their products have been made to strict standards and contain a consistent and clearly marked dose.

And to count as a traditional medicine, products must have been in use for the past 30 years, including 15 years within the EU.

They will also only be approved for minor ailments like coughs and colds, muscular aches and pains, or sleep problems.

The manufacturers of herbal remedies have had seven years to prepare for the new rules after the European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products was introduced in 2004.

These regulations apply to over-the-counter sales, which form the bulk of herbal remedies sold in the UK.

But some manufacturers and herbal practitioners have expressed concern, arguing the new rules are too onerous for many small producers.

Michael McIntyre, chairman of the European Herbal and Traditional Medicines Practitioners Association, says there will be a significant impact on herbal medicine practitioners and their suppliers, but admits the rules do need bringing up to date.

“Products that go on the market now will definitely do what it says on the bottle, while we didn’t know how good they were in the past.

“But registration is expensive so perhaps there may be fewer products on the market and a smaller range.

“It’s difficult to argue that the market should stay as it is, without any regulation, but how many businesses will pack up and walk away? I can’t say.”

A Department of Health spokesperson said: “We have swiftly introduced a system to register herbal practitioners using unlicensed herbal medicines, so consumers will be able to continue to use unlicensed herbal medicines if they wish.”

The case, known as Operation Singapore, centred on the importation of more than two million doses of counterfeit life saving medicines into the country.

More than half of these were captured by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, but a huge amount – almost 900,000 doses – initially reached pharmacies and patients.

Despite an immediate recall of Eli Lilly’s antipsychotic Zyprexa (olanzapine), Bristol-Myers Squibb’s bloodthinner Plavix (clopidogrel) and AstraZeneca’s prostate cancer drug Casodex (bicalutamide), 700,000 doses were left unaccounted for, putting the health of many Britons in jeopardy.

Mick Deats, the MHRA’s head of enforcement, also revealed that plans to bring in three other counterfeit drugs – Pfizer/Eisai’s Alzheimer’s drug Aricept (donepezil), UCB’s antiepileptic Keppra (levetiracetam) and Johnson & Johnson’s antipsychotic Risperdal (risperidone) – had been foiled.

“They didn’t get to bring them in but they were definitely well on the way to being prepared to receive them,” he told the media, according to Reuters.

“This is serious criminal activity and puts people’s lives at risk,” Deats said, and stressed that the Agency would not hesitate “to take all appropriate action to eliminate the risks posed by counterfeit medicines and take action against those engaged in their supply”.

However, he also noted current evidence suggests that medicines supplied through the UK legitimate supply chain are genuine and safe to take.

Since 2004 there have been just 15 known instances of counterfeit medicines in the UK regulated supply chain, and given that 850 million prescriptions are dispensed every year in the UK, the likelihood of receiving a counterfeit medicine remains extremely rare, the MHRA said.

From: http://www.pharmatimes.com/Man_jailed_for_worst_ever_breach_of_medicines_supply_chain

In the UK alone there are more than 500,000 people who suffer from epilepsy.

Dr Ben Whalley, who is leading the research at the department of pharmacy at the University of Reading, said tests in animals had shown the compounds effective at preventing seizures and convulsions while also having less side effects than existing epilepsy drugs.

He said: “There was a stigma associated with cannabis that came out from the 60s and 70s associated with recreational use, so people have tended not to look at it medicinally as a result.”

“Cannabis is thought of being a treasure trove of compounds that could be used for pharmacological development. We have a list of around a dozen potential candidates for epilepsy and have tested three that show promise.”

“These compounds are very well tolerated and you are not seeing the same kind of side effects that you get with the existing treatments.”

Epilepsy is caused by sudden bursts of electrical activity in the brain that disrupt the normal way in which messages are transmitted. This can cause debilitating seizures and fits that can lead to sufferers injuring themselves.

Dr Whalley, together with his colleagues Dr Claire Williams and Dr Gary Stephens have been working with drug company GW Pharmaceuticals to develop and test new treatments for the disease from cannabis.

Two of the compounds they have identified, one called cannabidiol and the other called GWP42006, have been highly effective at controlling seizures in animals and the researchers now hope to begin clinical trials in humans within the next three years.

Neither of the compounds produce the characteristic “high” associated with cannabis use.

The scientists, whose latest findings on the compounds are published in the scientific journal Seizure, believe they work by interfering with the signals that cause the brain to become hyper-excitable, which leads to epileptic seizures.

Until now the main medicinal use that has been explored for cannabis has been in treating Multiple Sclerosis and for pain relief in cancer patients.

GW Pharmaceuticals has been given a license to grows around 20 tonnes of cannabis a year at its facilities in a rural part of southern England for medicinal research. In each glasshouse the temperature is carefully maintained at 77 degrees F while the crops are protected by electric fences and 24 hour security.

Mark Rogerson, from GW Pharmaceuticals, said: “Medicinal cannabinoids can treat a wide range of diseases like MS and pain.

“The work by Dr Whalley and his team is taking us into a whole new area where there is a real unmet need. The stigma is counterbalanced by the fact that it is a serious medicine for a serious condition.”

A spokesman for Epilepsy Action said: “Epilepsy is a condition that can be very difficult to treat.

“We are aware of some people with epilepsy who have used cannabis for medicinal purposes. However, it should be noted that although taking cannabis may reduce seizures in some people, it could actually increase seizures in others.

“We therefore welcome research into this treatment area. It could help our understanding of alternative therapies and may prove useful in the long-term for people whose epilepsy does not respond to more traditional methods.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Cannabis-could-be-used-to-treat-epilepsy

The World Health Organization says the situation has reached a critical point.

A united push to make new drugs is urgently needed, it says.

Without a concerted effort, people could be dealing with the “nightmare scenario” of worldwide spread of untreatable infections, says the WHO.

One example is the New Delhi or NDM-1 superbug recently found in UK patients. They have brought the infection back with them from countries like India and Pakistan, where they had visited for medical treatment and cosmetic surgery.

The Cardiff University researchers, who made the discovery last August, now say bacteria with this new genetic resistance to antibiotics have contaminated New Delhi’s drinking water supply, meaning millions of people there could be carriers.

Dr Timothy Walsh and his team collected 171 swabs of seepage water and 50 public tap water samples from sites within a 12km radius of central New Delhi between September and October 2010.

The NDM-1 gene was found in two of the 50 drinking-water samples and 51 of 171 seepage samples.

Worryingly, the gene had spread to bacteria that cause dysentery and cholera, which can be easily passed from person to person via sewage-contaminated drinking water.

“Oral-faecal transmission of bacteria is a problem worldwide, but its potential risk varies with the standards of sanitation.

“In India, this transmission represents a serious problem… 650 million citizens do not have access to a flush toilet and even more probably do not have access to clean water,” the researchers warn in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases.

The scientists are calling for urgent action by health authorities worldwide to tackle the new strains and prevent their global spread.

Zsuzsanna Jakab, WHO regional director for Europe, said: “Antibiotics are a precious discovery, but we take them for granted, overuse and misuse them: there are now superbugs that do not respond to any drugs.

“Given the growth of travel and trade in Europe and across the world, people should be aware that until all countries tackle this, no country alone can be safe.”

The UK’s Health Protection Agency said it was monitoring the spread of NDM-1 closely.

“The first case of a bacterial infection with this resistance was identified in January 2008. Monitoring of this resistance began in 2009 as more cases were identified.”

So far, there have been around 70 cases of the infection recorded in the UK.

The HPA insists that the risk of infection to travellers to the Indian subcontinent who are not treated in hospital is minimal.

“If members of the public are travelling for surgery overseas they should satisfy themselves that appropriate infection control measures are in place,” says the HPA.

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12975693

The extensive review also other widespread variations in the quality of care and performance throughout primary care.

For example, one-third of patients with stomach or oesophageal cancer who needed an urgent referral to hospital were actually given a non-urgent referral by GPs.

In fact, overall, an eight-fold variation at which practices urgently refer patients with suspected symptoms of cancer on to specialists in secondary care was found.

Continuity of care continues to be an issue, as only just over a quarter of patients are able to see the doctor of their choice in the lowest performing practices.

Crucially, there were also wide variations in admission rates for patients that could actually be treated outside hospital, which is particularly important as the effective management of patients within the community could also save the NHS hundreds of millions of pounds a year, The King’s Fund said.

On a more general note, the inquiry’s report strongly backs the position of GPs as generalists rather than specialists, but also notes that the profession must embrace the radical changes laid out in the government’s reform of the health system – particularly new commissioning powers -  in order to “maintain its international reputation for excellence”.

In addition, in order to help meet the growing challenges in healthcare, such as the ageing population and increasing demand on service, by building on the changes already taking place within the system.

It calls on GPs to accelerate the trend for multi-professional teams that work closely alongside specialists outside the practice, move away from being ‘gatekeepers’ to ‘navigators’ who essentially co-ordinate care for people with complex needs, and place a greater emphasis on prevention of ill health.

There must also be a much stronger focus on improving the quality of care, the report notes, and also calls on GPs to take responsibility for driving forward progress through a stronger commitment to transparency, particularly on performance data, peer review and benchmarking, and better data capture and use of information.

“Although general practice in this country remains the envy of the world, there is no room for complacency,” warned The King’s Fund’s chief executive Chris Ham.

“While many practices have been at the vanguard of innovation and quality improvement, too many GPs remain unaware of significant variations in performance and do not give priority to improving quality,” he noted.

NHS Confederation acting chief executive Nigel Edwards said improving primary care and GP services is one of the biggest challenges facing the NHS, and that the report “highlights the need to address the major variations in the standards of care patients are receiving”.

He calls for the introduction of a national process to compare general practice standards which, he claims, would not only empower patients to compare the standard of care, but would also help “drive down variation in diagnosis, referrals and prescriptions, all of which are central to saving lives”.

According to the British Medical Association a “culture of self-scrutiny has existed for many years but now more than ever, given the increased intensity and complexity of general practice work nowadays, GPs need time off the treadmill so they can look critically at what they do and make improvements”.

“A reduction in bureaucracy would help them to do this, as would stopping the constant reorganisations within the NHS”, it stressed.

From: http://www.pharmatimes.com/NHS_could_save_millions_of_pounds_with_better_prescribing

Vast amounts of money have been wasted on unsuccessful crackdowns, while criminals have made fortunes importing drugs into this country.

The increasing use of the most harmful drugs such as heroin has also led to “enormous health problems”, according to the group.

The MPs and members of the House of Lords, who have formed a new All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform, are calling for new policies to be drawn up on the basis of scientific evidence.

It could lead to calls for the British government to decriminalise drugs, or at least for the police and Crown Prosecution Service not to jail people for possession of small amounts of banned substances.

Their intervention could receive a sympathetic audience in Whitehall, where ministers and civil servants are trying to cut the numbers and cost of the prison population. The Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, has already announced plans to help offenders kick drug habits rather than keeping them behind bars.

The former Labour government changed its mind repeatedly on the risks posed by cannabis use and was criticised for sacking its chief drug adviser, Prof David Nutt, when he claimed that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.

The chairman of the new group, Baroness Meacher – who is also chairman of an NHS trust – told The Daily Telegraph: “Criminalising drug users has been an expensive catastrophe for individuals and communities.

“In the UK the time has come for a review of our 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. I call on our Government to heed the advice of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime that drug addiction should be recognised as a health problem and not punished.

“We have the example of other countries to follow. The best is Portugal which has decriminalised drug use for 10 years. Portugal still has one of the lowest drug addiction rates in Europe, the trend of Young people’s drug addiction is falling in Portugal against an upward trend in the surrounding countries, and the Portuguese prison population has fallen over time.”

Lord Lawson, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer between 1983 and 1989, said: “I have no doubt that the present policy is a disaster.

“This is an important issue, which I have thought about for many years. But I still don’t know what the right answer is – I have joined the APPG in the hope that it may help us to find the right answer.”

Other high-profile figures in the group include Baroness Manningham-Buller, who served as Director General of MI5, the security service, between 2002 and 2007; Lord Birt, the former Director-General of the BBC who went on to become a “blue-sky thinker” for Tony Blair; Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, until recently the Director of Public Prosecutions; and Lord Walton of Detchant, a former president of the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council.

Current MPs on the group include Peter Bottomley, who served as a junior minister under Margaret Thatcher; Mike Weatherley, the newly elected Tory MP for Hove and Portslade; and Julian Huppert, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge.

The group’s formation coincides with the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which paved the way for a war on drugs by describing addiction as a “serious evil”, attempting to limit production for medicinal and scientific uses only, and coordinating international action against traffickers.

The peers and MPs say that despite governments “pouring vast resources” into the attempt to control drug markets, availability and use has increased, with up to 250 million people worldwide using narcotics such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin in 2008.

They believe the trade in illegal drugs makes more than £200 billion a year for criminals and terrorists, as well as destabilising entire nations such as Afghanistan and Mexico.

As a result, the all-party group is working with the Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust, to review current policies and scientific evidence in order to draw up proposed new ways to deal with the problem.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/War-on-drugs-has-failed-say-former-heads-of-MI5-CPS-and-BBC

The trial hit its primary goal of demonstrating that Sativex induced a significant improvement in the scores of spasticity, spasm frequency and sleep disturbance related to spasticity compared to a placebo.

Following a four-week, single-blind therapeutic trial period involving 572 patients, Sativex was shown to have reduced the mean score for spasticity, with 48% of patients achieving a clinically meaningful improvement of =20% in spasticity severity.

Of these responders, 241 took part in a 12-week, randomised, placebo-controlled trial phase, at the end of which the number of patients reporting an improvement in spasticity scores of =30% was significantly greater in the Sativex group (74%) than in the control arm (51%).

“We have been aware for a long time that cannabinoid medicines can significantly improve spasticity, which is a common, complex symptom of MS, and now the results from this study prove the positive impact they can have on patients’ symptoms, and ultimately their lives,” said Professor John Zajicek, Honorary Consultant in Neurology, Derriford Hospital and Chair of Clinical Neurosciences at PCMD, University of Plymouth, commenting on the findings.

MS affects around 100,000 people in the UK, and spasticity is a common symptom that is considered to be a major cause of disability, interfering with many every day activities such as walking, picking up objects, washing or dressing.

Sativex was approved by health regulators in the UK and Spain last year, but only in patients who have not responded to other medication and who show a clinically significant improvement in symptoms during a trial run of therapy.

Overall, GW Pharma is celebrating a stellar year with 27 sales hike GW Pharma s cannabis-based MS drug approved in Spain GW rolls out cannabis-based MS drug Sativex in UK Sativex deemed approvable by regulators in UK Spain. GW Pharma’s share has also received a boost on initial Sativex research on reducing cancer pain data.

From: http://www.pharmatimes.com/Study_backs_use_of_cannabis-based_Sativex_to_treat_MS

Under the deal, the drinks industry would be asked to sign up to a number of alcohol pledges.

These reportedly include ensuring 80% of products on the shelf are labelled for unit content, raising awareness of the unit content of drinks in pubs and clubs and taking action to reduce under-age drinking.

There would also be a pledge to commit to action on advertising and marketing by promoting responsible drinking and keeping alcohol adverts away from schools.

But the six organisations which had been involved in the Government’s Responsibility Deal Alcohol Network (RDAN), which also include the British Association for the Study of the Liver, the British Liver Trust, and the Institute of Alcohol Studies, refused to support the deal.

They said the pledges were neither specific nor measurable, that they lacked scope and that there was no evidence such voluntary interventions would be effective.

The statement read: “We have not yet seen evidence that Government is working towards a comprehensive, cross-departmental strategy to reduce alcohol harm, based on evidence of what works, with rigorous evaluation metrics.”

The organisations called on the Government to provide:

• A clear and firm commitment on how it intends – via evidence based policy – to tackle affordability, availability and promotion of alcohol as part of a cross-government strategy;

• A clear presentation of the steps that will be taken if the current RDA objectives are not met in 12 months’ time;

• A firm commitment to consider change – including through regulation – if voluntary commitments from business are not met after an agreed time period.

Don Shenker, chief executive of Alcohol Concern, said: “This is the worst possible deal for everyone who wants to see alcohol harm reduced.

“There are no firm targets or any sanctions if the drinks industry fails to fulfil its pledges.  It’s all carrot and no stick for the drinks industry and supermarkets.”

“By allowing the drinks industry to propose such half-hearted pledges on alcohol with no teeth, this Government has clearly shown that when it comes to public health its first priority is to side with big business and protect private profit.”

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, director of professional activities at the BMA, said: “The Government has talked the talk in respect of wanting to tackle alcohol misuse but when it comes to taking tough action that will achieve results, it falls short.

“Instead it has chosen to rely on the alcohol industry to develop policies – given the inherent conflict of interest these will do nothing to reduce the harm caused by alcohol misuse.”

Katherine Brown, Head of Research and Communications at the Institute of Alcohol Studies, said: “The most effective means of reducing alcohol-related harm is through adjustments in affordability, availability and promotion.

“These policies are supported by a broad evidence base and have been recommended to Government by a recent cross party House of Commons Health Committee report.

“The Responsibility Deal fails to address any of these policy areas and we are yet to see any real proof that Government is looking into developing a cross-departmental comprehensive alcohol strategy, based on evidence of what works.”

Alison Rogers, chief executive of the British Liver Trust, said: “For more than 10 years we have been persuaded to play the long game, sitting and watching the alcohol industry cultivate their relationship with the Government.

“Now it must stop for the sake of the 100 families losing loved ones each week from alcohol-related liver disease.”

And Sir Ian Gilmore, the Royal College of Physicians’ special adviser on alcohol, said: “The industry pledges published in various newspapers do not give practising doctors, who see the rising tide of health harm from drink in their daily practice, any confidence that they will get to the core of how we reverse this entirely preventable cause of illness and death.”

Sir Ian was among a trio of experts who recently warned the Government that up to 250,000 extra lives could be lost in the next 20 years in England and Wales unless tough restrictions on alcohol are introduced.

The liver death rate in the UK is 11.4 per 100,000 people, more than double that of other countries with similar drinking cultures, including Australia and Holland.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: “We have made clear from the start that the responsibility deal is just one strand of the Government’s wide public health policy. It explicitly excludes cost and price competition to avoid conflicts of interest.

“The Treasury have already announced an introduction of a new tax on super-strength beers; the Home Office have made their announcement on a ban in sales of alcohol below cost and plans to tighten licensing laws; and, our public health strategy sets out how local areas will be given a ring-fenced public health budget to ensure alcohol misuse gets the priority it deserves.

“In tandem to this action, the responsibility deal is working with the industry on voluntary agreements to get speedier results. For example, to improve unit labelling. The Responsibility Deal has achieved more in the last six months than the previous Government’s Coalition for Better Health did in a year and a half. What is more, this is only the first step.”

From: http://www.independent.co.uk/health-bodies-attack-government-alcohol-plans

Joachim Boldt is at the centre of a criminal investigation amid allegations that he may have forged up to 90 crucial studies on the treatment. He has been stripped of his professorship and sacked from a German hospital following allegations about his research into drugs known as colloids.

Experts described Mr Boldt’s alleged forgeries as possibly the biggest medical research scandal since Andrew Wakefield was struck off last year for falsely claiming to have proved a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Guidelines for British anaesthetists regarding colloids – used to boost blood volume in patients undergoing surgery – are being revised after it emerged that four of the key studies on which they were based are to be formally retracted.

Mr Boldt, 57, was regarded as a leading specialist in intravenous fluid management, and his work was published widely in British medical journals.

He claimed to have proved that colloids were as safe as other, similar treatments despite earlier studies showing them to be more dangerous. Mr Boldt’s alleged forgeries date back up to a decade.

The Consensus Guidelines on Intravenous Fluid Therapy, published by six British medical groups including the Association of Surgeons and the Intensive Care Society, were being withdrawn last night. Prof John MacFie, president of the Association of Surgeons, suggested that some British patients could have been put in danger. He said he would urge other medics to abandon colloids.

“We have withdrawn the guidelines from our website and we will need to rewrite the article,” he added. “The profession I represent does not want to be to be associated with potentially fraudulent research.

“Some people are comparing this to the Andrew Wakefield scandal. What Wakefield did had terrible implications on children’s lives, and the principle of this is the same.” As chief anaesthetist at Ludwigshafen Hospital in the Rhineland, Mr Boldt was the leading advocate of colloids, which are now commonly used across Europe.

He published dozens of papers “proving” their benefits and contradicting studies which suggested they could increase the risk of death in surgery and cause kidney failure, severe blood loss and heart failure.

German medical authorities are scrutinising 92 of his key publications and a criminal investigation is under way into allegations that he forged documents, tested drugs on patients without their consent and fraudulently claimed payments for operations he had never performed.

Mr Boldt received funding from manufacturers of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) – the colloid he most strongly advocated – including B. Braun, Baxter and Fresenius Kabi.

He was frequently paid to speak at international medical conferences where he hailed HES as “the holy grail” of fluid drugs.

HES and other colloids are up to 10 times more expensive than the alternative fluid management drugs, crystalloids, which some experts believe are safer as they contain smaller molecules and are more easily absorbed.

Mr Boldt was sacked from Ludwigshafen Hospital last November. It has established an investigating commission to review 29 of the 92 papers which have been identified as “highly suspected” of containing forged or distorted data. The others will be examined if serious evidence of forgery is found.

Prof Eike Martin, head of the investigating commission, told The Telegraph: “At first we thought that all the studies were 100 per cent invented, but now we have found a huge amount of clinical data from trials that were conducted.

“Our suspicion is that the trials are not reported accurately in the papers. Prof Boldt was an advocate for colloids and that was the conclusion of his studies, but the data he published is different from the original data we have seen.”

Prof Martin said investigators examining one study, which purported to show that HES caused less inflammation than another fluid management drug, had found that the original data contradicted the conclusion.

The editors in chief of a consortium of medical journals which published Mr Boldt’s work are also reviewing the 92 publications.

Sources close to the investigation said that the editors would announce the formal retraction of 89 papers next month.

Rhineland state prosecutors are investigating Mr Boldt over allegations that he forged the signatures of his alleged “co-authors” on his studies, conducted drugs trials without official approval and claimed money for operations that he never performed. Police raided his home and his offices at the hospital in December and seized paperwork and computers.

Lothar Liebig, the state’s director of public prosecutions, said: “Boldt published certain studies about medical drugs in order to get them accepted.

“There there is a strong suspicion that he deliberately failed to obtain the approval of the institutional review board in Ludwigshafen, which is a criminal offence.”

Other medical research has contradicted Mr Boldt’s findings.

Research by Dr Gill Schierhout and Dr Ian Roberts of University College London found in 1998 that the use of colloids during surgery increased the risk of death by four percentage points – equivalent to four extra deaths in every 100 patients.

A review published 10 years later by Konrad Reinhart and Christiane Hartog of Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany cited two large-scale clinical trials which found that HES could prevent the blood from clotting, which can cause heavy bleeding. Other studies have shown that some colloids can result in complications including heart and kidney failure, fluid entering the lungs and anaphylactic shock.

Suspicion first fell on Mr Boldt in October when readers of an article that he had published in the US journal Anesthesia and Analgesia, about the benefits of HES in bypass surgery, noticed that the pattern shown by his data was “too perfect to be believed”.

Dr Rupert Pearse, a senior lecturer in intensive care medicine at Barts and the London School of Medicine, and co-author of the British guidelines on fluid drugs, said last night: “I specifically remember looking at a paper of his last year and being surprised at how lucky he had been with his results.

“For me, it shakes the world I work in and makes me feel less confident in it, and if I were a member of the public I would feel the same.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Millions-of-surgery-patients-at-risk-in-drug-research-fraud-scandal

The Economic and Social Research Council, which questioned 40,000 families, found that one in eight people now sleeps for less than six hours a night, with more than half taking 30 minutes to drop off at least once a week.

The scientists said those who took pills were deceiving themselves if they thought they were getting proper rest, because a chemical “quick fix” is no substitute for proper rest.

Professor Sara Arber, of the University of Surrey, who led the research, said part of the problem was that “there’s almost a macho image around not needing much sleep”.

Margaret Thatcher, as Prime Minister, famously boasted she managed fine on four hours a night but the experts said this pattern would lead to sleep deprivation and an increased risk of diabetes, heart disease and obesity.

Professor Francesco Cappuccio, of the University of Warwick, told The Times, which reported the findings: “If you sleep less than five hours on a regular basis, your long term chance of developing these diseases increases dramatically.

“Anything you do to work against your body clock will have consequences on your physiology.”

Neil Stanley, a leading independent sleep researcher, told the paper: “A lot of people reach for medication as a quick fix rather than looking at the lifestyle and environmental issues that may be causing their sleep problems. ”

“There’s no medicine that gives a natural sleep. They give you a drug induced sleep.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/One-in-ten-Britons-taking-pills-to-get-to-sleep