Thema: TOLCAPONE / TASMAR -- SILENCE?
Datum: 29.10.97
An: [log in to unmask]
Tolcapone Tasmar (Hoffmann-LaRoche)
Can no-one say anything good about this promising and well intentioned drug?
As I (69/11) understand it, the much desired aims for the very existence of
Tasmar are to decrease intakes of levodopa and to increase patients' "on"
times. All of us who take this new medication must be concerned to learn
more about the side effects currently being experienced by PWPs taking their
prescribed doses of Tasmar.
I myself was started on Tasmar on the 10.10.97. Daily dose 3 x 100mg. It
was therefore, with a feeling of some discouragement that I read the reports
of the "bad" experiences from:-
Sonia Nielsen, Dale Severence and Anne Rutherford.
I myself, am not entirely "happy" with the effects that may originate from my
own new daily mix of pills, capsules and powders - this includes 3 x 100mg.
Tasmar and reduces the daily intake of Madopar to 1'000mg. I would like
to think however, that the way forward would be to change the "mix" of my
cocktail rather than to have the Tasmar condemned outright.
Also questioned is the wording of the introduction to a paragraph included
in Janet Paterson's /{Dr. Matthias Kurth} report of the 16.10.97 (19:09:53
hours) which reads:-
"Side effects are few, but include occasional mild headache, nausea, loose
stools, change in urine colour, and in some patients, a transient increase
in dyskinesia"
Are they few?
Perhaps too, a comment from Janet Paterson , to elaborate on the Roche
remark in the further {Reuters} report sent at 19:06:06 hours on the
16.10,97 could be called for viz
." But researchers note that these (uncontrollable twitches and jerks) can be
lessened or eliminated by adjusting the dose of levodopa".
There is no mention of the other side effects which I myself suspect include
the vexed issue of the unpleasant and evil smelling diarrhoea and
flatulence - also referred to or hinted at by the others who have written
in on the subject.
Any responces of up to date personal experiences with Tasmar would surely
interest many recipients of this List.
In conclusion and as a separate matter, may I ask Dan Mairose LURV15 to
reconfirm his EMail address that was written in at the end of his reply re
Tasmar of the 20.10.97? With the address supplied on that occasion, we
cannot get through. Many thanks.
[log in to unmask] (Rae Paterson )
P.S. This message is an abbreviated repeat of those attempted to be mailed
to [log in to unmask] on the 27th. October, 1997 and at
11.55.16hours this morning but believed undelivered for some reason or
another. If duplicated, with apologies to List members. RP/29.10.97
