We are justified in assuming that this megalomania is essentially of an infantile nature, and that, as development proceeds, it is sacrificed to social considerations. "Narcissistic injury and narcissistic scar are terms used by Freud in the 1920s. Narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are other, almost interchangeable, terms. When wounded in the ego, either by a real or a perceived criticism, a narcissistic persons displays of anger can be disproportionate to the nature of the criticism suffered; but typically, the actions and responses of the NPD person are deliberate and calculated. Despite occasional flare-ups of personal insecurity, the inflated self-concept of the NPD person is primarily stable.In The Psychology of Gambling (1957), Edmund Bergler considered megalomania to be a normal occurrence in the psychology of a child, a condition later reactivated in adult life, if the individual takes up gambling. In The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (1946), Otto Fenichel said that people who, in their later lives, respond with denial to their own narcissistic injury usually undergo a similar regression to the megalomania of childhood. Narcissistic supply
Narcissistic supply was a concept introduced by Otto Fenichel in 1938, to describe a type of admiration, interpersonal support, or sustenance drawn by an individual from his or her environment and essential to their self-esteem. The term is typically used in a negative sense, describing a pathological or excessive need for attention or admiration in codependents and the orally fixated, that does not take into account the feelings, opinions, or preferences of other people.
The results were heterogenous, with clear evidence of increased risk relative to placebo but not relative to other diabetes treatments and higher risk associated with combinations of rosiglitazone with insulin or metformin. Based on the 1.4x increased risk relative to control groups, FDA scientist David Graham presented an analysis suggesting that rosiglitazone had caused 83,000 excess heart attacks between 1999 and 2007.: 4  The advisory panel voted 20 : 3 that the evidence available indicated that rosiglitazone increased the risk of cardiovascular events and 22 : 1 that the overall risk:benefit ratio of rosiglitazone justified its continued marketing in the United States. The FDA placed restrictions on the drug, including adding a boxed warning about heart attacks, but did not withdraw it.In 2000 a study to address the concerns regarding cardiovascular safety was requested by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). GSK agreed to perform post-marketing a long-term cardiovascular morbidity/mortality study in patients on rosiglitazone in combination with a sulfonylurea or metformin: the RECORD study. The results as published in 2009 showed that rosiglitazone was non-inferior to treatment with metformin or a sulfonylurea with respect to the rate of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. European regulators concluded that due in part to design limitations, the results neither proved nor eliminated concerns of excess cardiovascular risk.In February 2010, the FDAs associate director of drug safety, recommended rosiglitazone be taken off the market.