1. You can still get a list of all the latest posts across all boards, just like on the old format. Read this for more.
  2. We've addressed a number of the issues raised in the previous survey. Please help us make sure we're aware of all issues by completing this new, short, confidential survey. Thank you!

Slo-Niacin vs Niaspan

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

  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I currently on Niaspan though the doc said that if I wanted to save money slo-niacin was "the best of the worst". Does it really caus liver toxicity problems like some posters say(and a KOS rep friend). It seems to me that they both have the same Polygel release system
     
  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    niaspan and slo-niacin are both slow release niacin (b3). the release system is not the same - USL has a patented release technology. as for liver toxicity, any person taking any niacin product, rx or otc, needs to have regular lft's checked. there are "safer" niacin type prodcuts "no-flush" for example, but they don't have the positive effects on TG or HDL. If you're on niaspan, you're simply paying way too much for vitamin B3. switch to slo-niacin but maintain the same check ups you would with niaspan. and fyi -i don't work for USL, but i did study and sell this product years ago. it's worth switching, there is no beneift to paying sooo much more.
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    There is a major difference between the safety of Niaspan and any form of dietary supplement slow niacin including the one offered from Upsher Smith. Don't make a decision based on what you read on this board. Do your own research and start with the FDA as well as organizations such as the American Heart Association that state "dietary supplement niacin must not be used ..." Slo-Niacin is a dietary supplement that would never pass the safety requirments of the FDA needed to become an approved prescription product.

    Anyone that thinks there is no difference between Niaspan and Slo-Niacin is not up to date with their understanding of niacin.
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    niaspan is only a prescription product because that was the route the manufacturer chose. there is no benefit to a rx version, it only adds cost to the patient. and as for quality - why has niaspan used a study to promote its product when slo-niacin was the product used. yes, i'm talking about HATS? don't take my word, or your trainers for that matter - ask an informed doc - niacin is pretty much niacin. should be taken carefully, and with proper monitoring. and niaspan isn't a breakthrough, superior product...just more costly. sorry, it's true. and i'm willing to bet my medical degree on it.
     
  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Hey Mr. "I'll bet my medical degree on it"- as a former Kos rep that sold Niaspan, go back and read the HATS study. Patients were switched to IR niacin in the study from slo-niacin because it had minimal lipid effects. Say what you want about Niaspan, but it works and it is the safest alternative of any niacin product.
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I can see why the good doctor is so willing to "bet his medical degree" as it appears his degree may be flawed as he seems to have missed the section on understanding the differences between the various forms of nicotinic acid. Here are a couple quotes from the NCEP ATP III Full Report available on the NIH website:

    "The sustained-release preparations usually increase HDL cholesterol levels by only 10-15% with the exception of Niaspan which retains the HDL -raising potential of the crystalline form."

    "The risk of hepatotoxicity appears to be greater with the sustained-release preparations, although not with Niaspan"

    "Niaspan is an extended-release preparation; however, its more rapid-release than sustained-release preparation appears to reduce the risk of hepatotoxicity. Niaspan also is associated with less flushing than with crystalline nicotinic acid."


    If you are looking to save money on niacin therapy - use an immediate release form. It is safe and it works. The downside is that you need to take it 3 or 4 times a day and the flushing side effects are terrible even if you follow a complicated 45 day dose titration schedule. But ... if you can tolerate it you might be able to save money if you pay cash for your meds. If you have good Rx insurance coverage use Niaspan without a doubt. If you pay cash, try IMMEDIATE RELEASE with Niaspan as a second option. If you need meaningful HDL elevations and you value your liver do not use any form of dietary supplement slow release niacin.
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I used all three and the I.R. 500 mg 3x = am noon pm had the greatest in in hdl....don't need to read study's ...I practice on my self....no insurance and pay cash for everything.
     
  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I used to take 1000 mg of Niaspan which btw still produces some flushing. Now I take a nonflush vitamin distributor version. The improvements to my HDL remained in effect. I also take some low dose statin drug.
     
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Typical dumbass KOS rep. You need to go back and read the HATS trial! Patients were only switched to IR niacin (NIACOR - USL product) if a specific patient didn't reach a certain threshhold. It was a small % of patients. Also, dumbass KOS rep, Slo-Niacin was the first extended-release niacin on the market and its release formula was virtually copied by KOS to create Niaspan. You pussies then went around claiming to be the niacin used in the HATS trial. I know because I had a lot of pissed off cardiologists when I showed them the Slo-Niacin name of the first page of the study. Kudos to KOS corporate for making it RX. But don't tell people that Niaspan is superior to Slo-Niacin. Liver issues only occur when physicians fail to warn patients about the dangers of taking more than 2000mg per day. If a patient took more than 2000mg of Niaspan, the same liver toxicities would take place. If you want to make claims that Niaspan is "safer" and that Slo-Niacin kills people, then put it in writing and have KOS endorse that statement. I'll be happy to bring it up with the FDA...stupid fuck!
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Get your facts straight. KOS has not been around for over 2 years. Abbott now owns and promotes niaspan.

    Slo-niasin is just one more example of USL's inability to make anything out of this poor excuse of a pharma company.

    KOS and their dum ass rep's laughed all the way to the bank when Abbott bought them out.
    You have no clue do you.
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    If you want the closest to the "truth" here it is. People try to make things black and white when it is not. First of all Slo-Niacin is a controlled or timed release OTC version of niacin, Niaspan is an extended release Rx version of niacin (there is a difference b/t controlled and extended release but I will spare you the details). The active ingredient is the same, that is obvious. The fact that Slo-Niacin is OTC shows that the product has to be proven SAFE and chemically pure to the product labeling, but it not as closely monitored as Rx products (which have to be proven effective). However, that does NOT mean Slo-Niacin will not be effective. Slo-Niacin DOES have a higher risk/potential for hepatoxicity (liver toxicity) this is partly due to some people going over the recommended max. amount of 2,000 mg/day, partly because they may not get normal liver function tests (LFTs) as they should for this drug and yes, partly because of the drug delivery system of Slo-Niacin (controlled release) has been associated with hepatoxicity (I know people will want to argue this last part). The fact is the controlled release is actually a slower/constant (zero-order) release than the Niaspan which you may think is a good thing, but in fact is bad because it keeps "artificially" elevated levels of niacin (meaning from the pill) in the body for a much longer time (it is better to have a shorter spike of niacin than a long, slow gently descending curve of niacin blood levels for liver safety). It is sort of "scary", if you will, to have this as an OTC product that could potentially have some very bad side effects without proper monitoring (and that is excluding the flushing that can occur, which can be helped by taking aspirin beforehand). If you go OTC, Niacor or immediate-release niacin is actually safer taking 50-100 mg twice daily to three time daily and increasing to slowly to 1,500 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day over several weeks, however, the relative difference in safety is not a HUGE amount, but as a pharmacist I do not recommend Slo-Niacin. Any OTC product it is also important to buy a product labeled with a USP or NSF symbol showing that their manufacturing process is actually monitored by someone. You would be amazed what has been found in some OTC drugs, dont always assume all products out there are equal... I know some will want to argue with this, but that is all the truth. Bottom line, Niaspan IS safer, however, I would not say by a huge margin, and I would talk to your doctor regarding safety of this drug anyway, just because its "OTC" doesn't mean its 100% safe for you.

    -From the doc, haha, although, I'll never bet my degree on anything, studies done constantly change the field of medicine and the best therapies for a given condition :)
     
  12. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Pretty exciting exchange! At the end of the day, Doctors can make their decisions based on their own interpretation of the tradeoffs on safety, efficacy and cost. As an Rx product promoted by a major pharma company, Niaspan will continue to be dominant, and Slo-Niacin will get a small piece of the pie. On a relative basis, both are productive products for the respective companies. There's plenty of room for both products in the market and each offers benefits that can help different types of patients.
     
  13. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest


    I would not trust anything with the NSF marking on it. National Santitation Foundation's monitoring program is just a step above a Good Housekeeping Seal.
     
  14. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I don't care if this reference is six years old or not.... http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2003/ucm147897.htm

    Kos were cited for bad quality control. Big deal, so now they're owned by Abbot. Bottom line is this:
    1. ANYTHING that comes out of Florida has SCAM attached to it by default
    2. The pharmaceutical industry are the biggest perpetrators of human misery in USA with their outrageous pricing to support shareholder returns and fat-cat corporate officers. It's disgusting, but there it is. In fact the entire health care industry sucks - BIG TIME.

    Funny how people in other countries seem to do pretty well without FDA regulation on their OTC and generic drugs!!!!!

    Wake up America. Stop the SCAMMING. The Federal Government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry. You are being robbed and pillaged. Tell your doctor or health care provider that unless he/she can prescribe an alternative to a name brand drug, you'll find someone who can. Start a groundswell of resistance to these thugs.
     
  15. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Thats all well and good, but if there is no one left to make the product, test the product, or sell the product how can people take the product?

    Thankfully there will still be people here to manage the product... poorly
     
  16. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Bottom Line! Niaspan was $120.00/month (with my insurance)......Slo-Niacin was $12.50......you do the math!
     
  17. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    $120??? What kind of absolute shit insurance do you have? Niaspan is pretty much preferred across the board. My BCBS has it for only $25 a month. Besides, if your shitty insurance has that bad of a pharmacy benefit, I'd forget about Niaspan altogether and quit pissing away my insurance premium dollars. So get off your ass, quit playing on the computer and go get a real job, with decent benefits you douchebag!
     
  18. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    As a small business owner, I have a Health Savings Plan. If you are aware of the stipulations of a HSA, you must pay for 100% of benefits until you reach your deductible. This includes Rx. So, it is not whether someone has a "bad" vs "good" Rx plan. People need to take into consideration all the aspects.

    As far as the comment about "playing on the computer, getting a real job" and the other very classy language you use. I don't know why anyone would not listen to your gems of wisdom.
     
  19. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I was on Niaspan for 6 months. The side effects are so severe I can't imagine the FDA approving this drug. The sad part is I put myself through that for nothing. After 6 months I saw no improvement in cholesterol,triglycerides or HDL. Not only is Niaspan extremely expensive I can't see that it's very effective. I am currently taking Gemfibrozil which is a generic version of a drug that has been around forever. Not only is it cheap wthout the side effects of Niaspan it appears to be much more effective.
     
  20. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    My husband has been on Niapsan for 4 years now. We pay $50 a month, which seems to be a bargain compared to some. The 2 months we were without insurance, it was $184!!! I begged some samples from the doctor's office. It has made a remarkable difference. When he started taking the Niaspan, his HDL was 4...no, that's not a typo. Now his HDL has been maintained in a normal range. Yes, it is a good drug, but I don't understand why it has to be SO expensive. OTC niacin is not an option for him. Our doc said he would have to take so much (he is on the max dose of 2000mg of Niaspan)that the savings would be nullified, and that there would be no guarantee that it would work.
     

Share This Page