This page will contain images about camel spider, as they become available.Solifugae |
| Families |
|---|
| See text. |
A Solifugid (plural form Solifugae) is an arachnid belonging to the order Solifugae, latin for They flee from the sun. The order is also known by the names Solpugida, Solifugae, Solpugides, Solpugae, Galeodea, and Mycetophorae. The order includes 900 known species, whose common names include "windscorpion", "sun spider", and "camel spider".
Most solifugae live in tropical or semitropical regions where they inhabit warm and arid habitats, but some species have been known to live in grassland or forest habitats. The most distinctive feature of solifugae is their large chelicerae. Each of the two chelicerae are composed of two articles forming a powerful pincer; each article bears a variable number of teeth. Males in all families but Eremobatidae possess a flagellum on the basal article of the chelicera. Solifugae also have long pedipalps, which function as sense organs similar to insects' antennae. Pedipalps terminate in eversible adhesive organs.
Solifugae are carnivorous or omnivorous, with most species feeding on termites, darkling beetles, and other small arthropods. Prey is located with the pedipalps and killed and cut into pieces by the chelicerae. The prey is then liquified and the liquid ingested through the pharynx. Reproduction can involve direct or indirect sperm transfer; when indirect, the male emits a spermatophore on the ground and then inserts it with his chelicerae in the female's genital pore.
As indicated by their name, Solifugae are mostly nocturnal, and seek shade during the day. It is this behavior which led coalition soldiers in the 2003 invasion of Iraq to think these arachnids were attacking them. In reality, they were merely moving toward the newly available shade provided by the soldiers' presence. The absence of shade sends them away.
Solifugae are the subject of many myths and exaggerations about their size, speed, behavior, appetite, and lethality. They are not especially large, the biggest having a legspan of perhaps 5 inches, and although they are fast on land compared to other invertebrates, the fastest can run perhaps 10 miles per hour, a common running speed for many humans. Members of this order of Arachnidae have no venom and do not spin webs. In the Middle East, it is common belief among American soldiers stationed there that Solifugae will feed on living human flesh. The story goes that the creature will inject some anesthetizing venom into the exposed skin of its sleeping victim, then feed voraciously, leaving the victim to awaken with a gaping wound. Solifugae, however, do not produce such an anesthetic, and, like most creatures with any sort of survival instinct, they do not attack prey larger than themselves unless they feel they must, such as situations of defense or protection of young. Due to their bizarre appearance and the fact that they produce a hissing sound when they feel threatened, many people are startled or even afraid of them. However, the greatest threat they pose to humans is their bite in self-defense when one tries to handle them. There is no chance of death directly caused by the bite, but, due to the strong muscles of their chelicerae, they can produce a proportionately large, ragged wound which is prone to infection. While one species, Rhagodes nigrocinctus, does appear to possess venom, its bite is not known to be dangerous to humans.
There are thirteen families belonging to the order Solifugae:
|
There are thirteen families belonging to the order Solifugae:. It is likely that these trials will be extended in order to supply additional evidence of cardiovascular safety. While one species, Rhagodes nigrocinctus, does appear to possess venom, its bite is not known to be dangerous to humans. Newer and more specific COX-2 inhibitors, including etoricoxib (Arcoxia) and lumiracoxib (Prexige), are currently undergoing Phase III/IV clinical trials. There is no chance of death directly caused by the bite, but, due to the strong muscles of their chelicerae, they can produce a proportionately large, ragged wound which is prone to infection. (Solomon et al., 2005; Nussmeier et al., 2005). However, the greatest threat they pose to humans is their bite in self-defense when one tries to handle them. Recent studies have demonstrated the increased risk of cardiovascular events associated with the use of celecoxib, valdecoxib and parecoxib. Due to their bizarre appearance and the fact that they produce a hissing sound when they feel threatened, many people are startled or even afraid of them. It is currently unknown whether the increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events is common to all COX-2 inhibitors. Solifugae, however, do not produce such an anesthetic, and, like most creatures with any sort of survival instinct, they do not attack prey larger than themselves unless they feel they must, such as situations of defense or protection of young. Food and Drug Administration does not do enough to monitor product safety and that the rofecoxib withdrawal is an argument against tort reform; others argue that litigation is an imperfect means of regulation that would overdeter companies for complying with FDA requirements, and that large awards like that in Ernst would inhibit research and development. The story goes that the creature will inject some anesthetizing venom into the exposed skin of its sleeping victim, then feed voraciously, leaving the victim to awaken with a gaping wound. Some argue that the U.S. In the Middle East, it is common belief among American soldiers stationed there that Solifugae will feed on living human flesh. The recall and litigation over rofecoxib has provoked debate over drug safety in the United States. Members of this order of Arachnidae have no venom and do not spin webs. Several other trials are docketed for the first few months of 2006, including the first cases involving long-term use of rofecoxib. They are not especially large, the biggest having a legspan of perhaps 5 inches, and although they are fast on land compared to other invertebrates, the fastest can run perhaps 10 miles per hour, a common running speed for many humans. The trial is not expected to be completed for several months. Solifugae are the subject of many myths and exaggerations about their size, speed, behavior, appetite, and lethality. The plaintiff, a 71-year-old smoker with heart disease, had a fatal heart attack three weeks after finishing a one-week sample of rofecoxib. The absence of shade sends them away. Merck began trial in Rio Grande City, Texas. In reality, they were merely moving toward the newly available shade provided by the soldiers' presence. In January 2006, Garza v. It is this behavior which led coalition soldiers in the 2003 invasion of Iraq to think these arachnids were attacking them. The case will be retried in February 2006 in New Orleans, Louisiana, where the Vioxx multi-district litigation (MDL) is based. As indicated by their name, Solifugae are mostly nocturnal, and seek shade during the day. According to the Wall Street Journal, the jury hung by an eight to one majority, favoring the defense. Reproduction can involve direct or indirect sperm transfer; when indirect, the male emits a spermatophore on the ground and then inserts it with his chelicerae in the female's genital pore. The trial ended in a hung jury and a mistrial was declared on December 12, 2005. The prey is then liquified and the liquid ingested through the pharynx. Merck, began on November 29, 2005 in Houston, Texas. Prey is located with the pedipalps and killed and cut into pieces by the chelicerae. The first federal trial on rofecoxib, Plunkett v. Solifugae are carnivorous or omnivorous, with most species feeding on termites, darkling beetles, and other small arthropods. The jury ruled that Merck had adequately warned doctors and patients of the drug's risk.[3]. Pedipalps terminate in eversible adhesive organs. Merck argued that there was no evidence that rofecoxib was the cause of Humeston's injury and that there is no scientific evidence linking rofecoxib to cardiac events with short durations of use. Solifugae also have long pedipalps, which function as sense organs similar to insects' antennae. The plaintiff experienced a mild myocardial infarction and claimed that rofecoxib was responsible, after having taken it for two months. Males in all families but Eremobatidae possess a flagellum on the basal article of the chelicera. Merck, a personal injury case, in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Each of the two chelicerae are composed of two articles forming a powerful pincer; each article bears a variable number of teeth. On November 3, 2005, Merck won the second case Humeston v. The most distinctive feature of solifugae is their large chelicerae. This award was likely be capped at no more than USD$26.1 million because of punitive damages limits under Texas law.[2] As of January 2006, the plaintiff had yet to ask the court to enter a judgment on the verdict. Most solifugae live in tropical or semitropical regions where they inhabit warm and arid habitats, but some species have been known to live in grassland or forest habitats. The jury awarded Carol Ernst, widow of Robert Ernst, USD$253.4 million in damages. The order includes 900 known species, whose common names include "windscorpion", "sun spider", and "camel spider". Merck argued that the death was due to atherosclerosis, which had not been shown to be associated with rofecoxib use. The order is also known by the names Solpugida, Solifugae, Solpugides, Solpugae, Galeodea, and Mycetophorae. On August 19, 2005, a jury in Texas voted 10-2 to hold Merck liable for the death of Robert Ernst, a 59-year old man who allegedly died of a rofecoxib-induced cardiac arrhythmia. A Solifugid (plural form Solifugae) is an arachnid belonging to the order Solifugae, latin for They flee from the sun. Merck, was scheduled in Alabama in the spring of 2005, but was postponed after Merck argued that the plaintiff had falsified evidence of rofecoxib use.[1]. Solpugidae. The first wrongful death trial, Rogers v. Rhagodidae. As of early 2006, there had been over 9,600 cases and 190 class actions filed against Merck over adverse cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib and the adequacy of Merck's warnings. Mummuciidae. The advisory panel 17-15 ruling allowed the drug to return to the market despite being found to increase heart risk. Melanoblossidae. and Canada encouraged the return of Vioxx to the market, stating that Vioxx's benefits outweighed the risks to patients. Karschiidae. In 2005, advisory panels in both the U.S. Karschiidae. meta-analysis (Merck & Co., 2004). Hexisopodidae. Merck responded by issuing a rebuttal of the Jüni et al. Gylippidae. The Lancet published an editorial which condemned both Merck and the FDA for the continued availability of rofecoxib from 2000 until the recall. Galeodidae. The authors concluded that, owing to the known cardiovascular risk, rofecoxib should have been withdrawn several years earlier. Eremobatidae. On November 5 the medical journal The Lancet published a meta-analysis of the available studies on the safety of rofecoxib (Jüni et al., 2004). Daesiidae. FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market. Ceromidae. In addition to its own studies, on September 23, 2004 Merck apparently received information about new research by the FDA that supported previous findings of increased risk of heart attack among rofecoxib users (Grassley, 2004). Ammotrechidae. Merck publicly announced its voluntary withdrawal of the drug from the market worldwide on September 30, 2004. In sum, the APPROVe study suggested that long-term use of rofecoxib resulted in nearly twice the risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke compared to patients receiving a placebo. (Swan, 2004). (Bresalier et al., 2005) Previous Phase III clinical trials had also not shown this trend. The results from the first 18 months of the APPROVe study did not show an increased relative risk of adverse cardiovascular events. In patients taking rofecoxib, versus placebo, the relative risk of these events was 1.92 (rofecoxib 1.50 events vs placebo 0.78 events per 100 patient years). The APPROVe study was terminated early when the preliminary data from the study showed an increased relative risk of adverse thrombotic cardiovascular events (including heart attack and stroke), beginning after 18 months of rofecoxib therapy. An additional aim of the study was to further evaluate the cardiovascular safety of rofecoxib. Celecoxib had already been approved for this indication, and it was hoped to add this to the indications for rofecoxib as well. In 2001, Merck commenced the APPROVe (Adenomatous Polyp PRevention On Vioxx) study, a three year trial with the primary aim of evaluating the efficacy of rofecoxib for the prophylaxis of colorectal polyps. There was no difference in risk for patients with normal cardiovascular risk. In sum, the VIGOR study suggested that medium-term use of rofecoxib resulted in nearly four-times the risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke in patients already at high risk of adverse cardiovascuar events compared to patients receiving a placebo. The results of the VIGOR study were submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in February 2001, which led to the introduction, in April 2002, of warnings on Vioxx labelling concerning the increased risk of cardiovascular events (heart attack and stroke). Merck's scientists interpreted the finding as a protective effect of naproxen in reducing the risk of MI in high cardiovascular risk patients by 80 percent (which some commentators have noted would make naproxen three times as effective as aspirin). (Bombardier et al., 2000). Once this risk was noted, Merck notified investigators in other rofecoxib studies to modify allow high-risk patients to take low-dose aspirin. The difference in overall risk was accounted for by the patients meeting the criteria for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis of secondary cardiovascular events (previous myocardial infarction, angina, cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, or coronary bypass), but who were excluded from taking low-dose aspirin in the initial design study. Nor was there any significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction between the rofecoxib and naproxen treatment groups in patients without high cardiovascular risk. There was no significant difference in the mortality from cardiovascular events between the two groups. The VIGOR study, published in 2000, had indicated a significant 4-fold increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) in rofecoxib patients when compared with naproxen patients (0.4% vs 0.1%, RR 0.25) over the 12 month span of the study. (Reddy & Corey, 2005). Some researchers have speculated that the cardiotoxicity may be associated with maleic anhydride metabolites formed when rofecoxib becomes ionised under physiological conditions. Rofecoxib, however, does appear to increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events with long-term use (see below). Aside from the reduced incidence of gastric ulceration, rofecoxib exhibits a similar adverse effect profile to other NSAIDs. Main article: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. (Bombardier et al., 2000). This was largely based on the VIGOR (Vioxx GI Outcomes Research) study, which compared the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of rofecoxib and naproxen. Interestingly, at the time of its withdrawal, rofecoxib was the only coxib with clinical evidence of its superior gastrointestinal adverse effect profile over conventional NSAIDs. This specificity allows rofecoxib and other COX-2 inhibitors to reduce inflammation and pain while minimizing undesired gastrointestinal adverse effects - peptic ulcers - that are common with non-selective NSAIDs such as aspirin, naproxen, and ibuprofen. Being COX-2 selective means that these drugs act specifically on one form of the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzyme, namely the COX-2, whereas previous NSAIDs inhibited both COX-1 and COX-2. Rofecoxib belongs to the group of NSAIDs known as COX-2 selective inhibitors or coxibs (CycloOXygenase-2 InhiBitors). . Rofecoxib was available on prescription as tablets and as an oral suspension. In the year before withdrawal, Merck had a sales revenue of US$2.5 billion from Vioxx. Worldwide, over two million people were prescribed rofecoxib at the time. Rofecoxib was one of the most widely used drugs ever to be withdrawn from the market. under the trade names Vioxx, Ceoxx and Ceeoxx, it was voluntarily withdrawn from the market in 2004 because of concerns about increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Formerly marketed by Merck & Co. Rofecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that was used in the treatment of osteoarthritis, acute pain conditions, and dysmenorrhoea. Urgent Medicine Recall VIOXX® (rofecoxib) - Merck Announces Voluntary Worldwide Withdrawal of VIOXX. (1 October 2004). Swan L, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd. PMID 15713944. N Engl J Med 2005;352(11):1071-80. Cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib in a clinical trial for colorectal adenoma prevention. Solomon SD, McMurray JJ, Pfeffer MA, Wittes J, Fowler R, Finn P, et al. [4]. Facile air oxidation of the conjugate base of rofecoxib (Vioxx™), a possible contributor to chronic human toxicity Tetrahedron Lett 2005, 46: 927. Reddy LR, Corey EJ. PMID 15713945. N Engl J Med 2005;352(11):1081-91. Complications of the COX-2 inhibitors parecoxib and valdecoxib after cardiac surgery. Nussmeier NA, Whelton AA, Brown MT, Langford RM, Hoeft A, Parlow JL, et al. 5. Press Release. Published in The Lancet on Nov. Response to Article by Juni et al. Merck & Co., (5 Nov 2004). Lancet (published online). Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Jüni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S, Sterchi R, Dieppe PA, Egger M (2004). Grassley questions Merck about communication with the FDA on Vioxx. Press Release. Grassley CE (15 Oct 2004). PMID 15713943. N Engl J Med 2005;352(11): 1092-102. Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H, Bolognese JA, Oxenius B, Horgan K, et al. PMID 11087881. N Engl J Med 2000;343(21): 1520-8. Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Burgos-Vargas R, Davis B, et al. |