Slashdot Mirror


FDA Approves New Drug for Type 2 Diabetes

Neopallium writes to tell us that the FDA has approved the first of a new kind of treatment for type 2 diabetes. From the article: "JANUVIA belongs to a new breakthrough class of prescription medications called dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors that improves blood sugar control in patients with type 2 diabetes. JANUVIA enhances a natural body system called the incretin system, which helps to regulate glucose by affecting the beta cells and alpha cells in the pancreas. Through DPP-4 inhibition, JANUVIA works only when blood sugar is elevated to address diminished insulin due to beta-cell dysfunction and uncontrolled production of glucose by the liver due to alpha-cell and beta-cell dysfunction."

7 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Cinnamon and Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And some other natural sources do affect the control of glucose levels in a positive way. It is strange that people try to invent stuff where nature can help too. It is the dosis that matters and a good doctor should be able to help you with that.

    When the FDA approves something, best bet that they gain profit from it. In money or otherwise....

    - Unomi -

  2. Re:Fatties of the world... by CyberZen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nice troll. Really.

    Cause? Or correlation? Some recent research suggests that, in people with so-called metabolic syndrome, the real problem might be systemic inflammation. Systemic inflammation = increased blood fats, increased blood pressure, decreased insulin response, and weight gain.

    We really don't understand type II diabetes so well just yet. Type I, we do. Some suggest that type II patients who are obese might be obese because of the diabetes, not have the diabetes because they're obese. I'm not giving them a free pass, but people like you are the reason there's no ribbon for lung cancer -- you think people deserve these diseases. The first question people ask when someone gets lung cancer? "How long did they smoke?" For some of them the answer is, "They didn't."

    Maybe the world isn't quite as simple as you think.

  3. The rest of us get screwed again by Augie+De+Blieck+Jr. · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Someday, one of these announcements will actually help those of us with Juvenile Diabetes (Type 1), who have to take multiple shots a day and not just pop a pill.

    Genetics sucks.

  4. Re:Why the hostility? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Another point so often left out is the sugar content in foods today. Modern food is chock a block with high fructose corn syrup. Virtually all food contains it at this point. It's a major contributing factor for diabetes and is something largely outside the ken, never mid the control, of the average person.

    When someone contracts Type-II diabetes, don't just ask how much they ate. Ask what they ate. I'd wager the second is by far the bigger contributor to the disease. If HFCS was a banned substance, I would forsee a collapse in the number of diabetics emerging, even without a decrease in consumption.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  5. Re:Instead of more drugs... by mrjb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Instead of making America take more drugs and waste more money, how about they just ban high fructose corn syrup?
    Wikipedia says "A more recent study found a link exists between obesity and high HFCS consumption, especially from soft drinks.".

    So instead of banning HFCS, how about cutting down on the fizzy drinks, for example by reducing the serving size at your local golden arcs? The bucketloads of soda-pop served as a single serving in the States are beyond ridiculous. An average restaurant in Europe will sell servings of 200 ml as 'small', 330 ml as 'normal' and 400 cc as 'large'. I commonly see liter-buckets (1000cc or about 1/4 gallon) being served in the States. Here in Europe we don't even *have* that type of serving size for fizzy drinks.

    When I was a kid, my mother always taught us that fizzy drinks were 'party drinks', unsuitable for quenching thirst. Instead we'd have (pure, unsweetened) fruit juices/milk/tea/water. Not a drop of HFCS in there... My point is, instead of telling the government to 'ban HFCS instead of making the people spend more money', what about educating the people and letting them take some responsibility for their actions?

    If people can not be held responsible for watching their own HFCS consumption, why trust them to walk around with guns?

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  6. Re:Instead of more drugs... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Once E85 becomes more popular here, there will be less corn syrup, since ethanol production (corn liquor in the gas sounds funny, but it will help our energy dependence) will be using up the corn supply. The top priorities for corn will be eating it directly and car fuel, corn syrup will become less economical.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  7. Re:Instead of more drugs... by Apotsy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A soft drink sweetened with cane sugar would be just as bad.

    No, it would not be "just as bad", because cane sugar and HFCS affect the body very differently. Go read some of the links in this thread and you'll see. They are not equivalent. That is the whole point. The "hysteria" you point to is actually quite justified. HFCS is a dangerous ingredient, regardless of people's eating habits.