Slo-Niacin vs Niaspan

Discussion in 'Upsher Smith Labs' started by Anonymous, Nov 28, 2007 at 6:31 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I agree with your math. In my case, it would have been $81/30 Niaspan 500 for the 1st month and $141/30 Niaspan 1000 for the 2nd month. The Slo-Niacin was $18/100 which is enough for 30 pills this month, 60 pills next month (2 x 500 = 1000) with 10 pills and about $200 left over. Even the people that swear by the Niaspan admit that the difference in the 2 products is fairly minor. Unless you have tried the Slo-Niacin and it did't work for you, it's just not worth the extra money for the Niaspan and, if you are someone for whom the Slo-Niacin didn't work, maybe the problem is that Niacin doesn't work for you, not the delivery system.
     

  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

     
  3. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Can you at least explain the difference in the two since you appear to know something some of us don't?
     
  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    One is a cheap end run around the regulatory process and the other isn't.
     
  5. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Efficacy and safety evaluation of a large niacin therapeutic interchange program.
    Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2013 May;47(5):657-64. doi: 10.1345/aph

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    An extended-release niacin product (Niaspan, Abbott Laboratories) was identified as a product with a less costly therapeutic alternative; a therapeutic product interchange was implemented.

    OBJECTIVE:
    To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a product therapeutic interchange from Niaspan to a controlled-release niacin product (Slo-Niacin, Upsher-Smith Laboratories) among patients at a large US Department of Veterans Affairs health care facility.

    METHODS:
    Patients with active prescriptions for Niaspan underwent a therapeutic product interchange to Slo-Niacin; following conversion of the product, the medical record for each patient was reviewed and pre- and postconversion clinical information and conversion details were transcribed into a database for subsequent analysis and study. The primary efficacy end point was pre- and postconversion level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; secondary efficacy end points were levels of serum total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides. Abnormal serum liver enzyme levels greater than 3 times the upper limits of normal was the primary safety end point; blood hemoglobin A1c was assessed as a secondary safety end point.

    RESULTS:
    A total of 5321 patients' medical records were reviewed; for the efficacy evaluation, 539 patients were maintained on a daily dose of Slo-Niacin that was the same as the previous Niaspan dose. The dosage of any other concurrently prescribed dyslipidemia medication was unchanged. Analysis of these cases indicated that the conversion of Niaspan to Slo-Niacin was not associated with a difference in serum lipids over a mean (SD) of 503.9 (98.0) postconversion observation days with the exception of a decrease in mean serum triglyceride concentration of 19.8 mg/dL (p = 0.0003). Evaluation of all 5321 patients given Slo-Niacin for up to 724 days did not detect any safety differences between Slo-Niacin and Niaspan. Local facility cost avoidance exceeded $800,000 in the first postconversion year.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Data from a medication use evaluation of modified-release niacin products therapeutic interchange in a large US Department of Veterans Affairs health care facility show that the switch from Niaspan to Slo-Niacin had no negative effects on lipid-altering efficacy or safety but generated significant cost avoidance.

    PMID:23613096 DOI:10.1345/aph.1R736
     
  6. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

     
  7. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    We dont care, slo-niacin was sold.
     
  8. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Rest of the compan isn't far behind.
     
  9. GIANNA61

    GIANNA61 Guest

    Are there any new forms of niacin ER except slo niacin similar to NIASPAN?