Psych Drugs -- Doctors Serve As Middle-Man Pushers

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:23:02 -0500

[sSRI-Research] Psych Drugs -- Doctors Serve As Middle-Man

Pushers

 

 

 

 

http://www.sierratimes.com/06/02/22/70_224_207_148_29749.htm

 

 

Sierra Times, Wed, 22 Feb 2006 1:45 AM PST

 

 

Psych Drugs -- Doctors Serve As Middle-Man Pushers

Evelyn Pringle

 

Although peddling psychiatric drugs for off-label treatment of every

ailment known to man is highly profitable, it is also illegal.

Marketing schemes that increase the rates at which drugs are

prescribed for off-label use, result in the sale of drugs that have

not been proven safer or superior to FDA approved medications already

on the market.

 

That said, its time to quit blaming the pharmaceutical industry

exclusively for off-labeling marketing. The fact remains, that drug

makers could not sell their new and relatively untested drugs if not

for the doctors who take on the role of middle-man pusher.

 

Since the arrival of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

antidepressants (SSRIs), and atypical antipsychotics on the market,

countless studies have shown the so-called " new generation " of

psychiatric drugs to be ineffective and dangerous. But for years, drug

companies have successfully manipulated data, suppressed negative

studies, and reported only the clinical trials with positive results.

 

However, by now plenty of warnings have been issued about these drugs,

and doctors who continue to prescribe them due to financial incentives

from pharma, or because they happen to be approved by the compromised

FDA, should not be let off the hook. If it takes a few highly

publicized lawsuits against prescribing physicians to knock some sense

into these doctors, so be it.

 

Medical professionals need to start conducting their own research

which means doing more than relying on medical journal abstracts on

the internet that for the most part, are formatted to report

misleading claims without mentioning the contradictory data.

 

On January 13, 2005 WebMD Medical News reported a government study

that showed more Americans than ever are being treated for substance

abuse, depression, and other mental health disorders, but the

treatment they are getting is increasingly limited to prescription

drugs alone.

 

The study assessed changing patterns in the treatment of mental

illnesses from the mid-1990s to 2001, and determined that mental

health drug costs rose 20% each year.

 

According to Economist Samuel H Zuvekas, PhD, who conducted the

analysis, about 80% of the growth in expenditures can be explained by

the increase in the use of SSRIs and other antidepressants, and

high-priced schizophrenia drugs called " atypical antipsychotics. "

 

Worldwide, sales of anti-psychotics went from $263 million in 1986 to

$8.6 billion in 2004 and antidepressant sales went from $240 million

in 1986, to $11.2 billion in 2004, For these two classes of drugs

combined, sales went from $500 million in 1986 to nearly $20 billion

in 2004, a 40-fold increase, according to Robert Whitaker,

best-selling author of Mad in America.

 

For over 15 years, millions of Americans have been prescribed SSRIs

for off-label treatment of a multitude of newly invented disorders. Mr

Whitaker says, " what we're seeing is nothing more than the creation of

a larger market for drugs. "

 

" If you think about it, " he explained during an August 2005, interview

with Street Spirit, " as long as we draw as big a circle as possible,

and expand the boundaries of mental illness, psychiatry can have more

clients and sell more drugs. "

 

" So there's a built-in economic incentive to define mental illness in

as broad terms as possible, " he continued, " and to find ordinary,

distressing emotions or behaviors that some people may not like and

label them as mental illness. "

 

Prozac is the only SSRI approved by the FDA for treating depression in

children. It is reportedly the only SSRI shown to be effective in two

pediatric trials, the number required to obtain FDA approval.

 

But to put the term " effective " into perspective, all a drug has to do

to pass 2 trials, is show it had better results in children treated

with the SSRI than children taking a placebo. The trick is that a

company can do 100 trials to get the necessary result if need be. It

stands to reason that sooner or later the SSRI is bound to do better

than a placebo when the odds are 50-50.

 

However, over the past couple of years, this practice has been coming

under scrutiny. GlaxoSmithKline was nailed for fraud in 2004, by New

York State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer for hiding studies that

" not only failed to show any benefit for the drug in children but

demonstrated that children taking Paxil were more likely to become

suicidal than those taking a placebo. "

 

The suit said the company had conducted at least 5 studies on the use

of Paxil on children, but only published and disseminated the results

of one.

 

Spitzer drew attention to the fraud charges by publishing a 1998

e-mail in which Glaxo officials discussed the studies and the need to

" effectively manage the dissemination of these data in order to

minimize any potential negative commercial impact. "

 

Although Paxil was never approved to treat depression in children,

according to Spitzer, in 2002, doctors prescribed the drug off-label

to children two million times, the same year that Paxil was Glaxo's

top seller, with sales of $3.8 billion.

 

To settle the charges, Glaxo agreed to pay $2.5 million to the State

of New York.

 

An April 10, 2004 article in the British Medical Journal, citing

Jurendi et al, criticized the authors of published studies on SSRIs

for exaggerating benefits and downplaying their harm. As an example,

Jurendi noted that a trial of 93 kids on Paxil, produced 11 serious

adverse events compared with only two in the placebo group. Despite

this, and the fact that 7 of the Paxil patients were admitted to the

hospital, the authors of the study claimed Paxil " was generally well

tolerated in this adolescent population, and most adverse effects were

not serious. "

 

As for the effectiveness of SSRIs, in June, 2005, the Washington Post

reported: " Despite a dramatic increase in treatment of psychiatric

disorders during the past 10 years, there has been no decrease in the

rate of suicidal thoughts and behavior among adults, according to a

federal study primarily funded by the National Institute of Mental

Health. "

 

Although studies have shown atypical antipsychotics to be associated

with a growing number of serious adverse effects, doctors continue to

be prescribe them off-label to teat a host of health problems, for

senior citizens, persons in state institutions, and children.

 

In 2004, atypicals became the fourth-highest-grossing drugs in the US,

with $3.4 billion of their total sales funded by state Medicaid

programs, according to the article Medicating Aliah, in the May 2005

issue of Mother Jones Magazine.

 

Recent research has shown that nursing home residents are being fed

antipsychotics in record numbers. A June 13, 2005, study published in

the Archives of Internal Medicine examined the quality of

antipsychotic prescriptions in approximately 2.5 million Medicaid

beneficiaries in nursing homes and found that " over half (58.2%), "

received antipsychotic drugs that exceeded the maximum recommended

dosage, received duplicate therapy, or under the guidelines, had

inappropriate indications for the medications to begin with.

 

The study found that more than 200,000 nursing home residents received

antipsychotic therapy but had " no appropriate indications for use. "

 

Pharma will stop at nothing when it comes to making money off

children. On April 25, 2005, the Ohio Columbus Dispatch reported an

investigation of state Medicaid records that found 18 newborn to 3

years-old babies in Ohio had been prescribed antipsychotic drugs in

July 2004.

 

During an investigation of children under state care in Pennsylvania,

Dr Stefan Kruszewski, a Harvard trained psychiatrist, found " cases

where children were placed in state-funded residential treatment

facilities, sometimes for years, and were heavily drugged with the new

antipsychotics and anticonvulsants. "

 

Reports of the adverse effects of the drugs on children are beginning

to emerge. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia recently found that

19% of newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetic children were being treated

with psychiatric drugs like Zyprexa, Risperdal, Geodon, Seroquel,

Clozaril, and Abilify, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr vs the

Medical Elite, by Mark Sircus Ac, OMD in June 22, 2005.

 

" Many of these drugs carry black box warning to alert MD's about the

dangers of diabetes, " Mr Sircus pointed out. " The most studied adverse

effect of the newer generation of antipsychotics is their association

with hyperglycemia, in some cases leading to ketoacidosis, coma, or

death, " he wrote.

 

According to Dr Kruszewski, the new atypicals substantially increase

the risk of obesity, diabetes type II, hypertension, heart attacks,

cardiovascular complications, and stroke.

 

" The drug makers had this information and simply ignored the problem, "

he says.

 

Dr Kruszewski is apparently correct judging by hidden studies that

have come to light. After years of prescribing Risperdal, for

off-label use by millions of patients in all age groups, on July 24,

2004, the Miami Herald reported the " maker of a billion-dollar

antipsychotic medication has acknowledged misleading doctors and other

healthcare providers about the safety of its product, minimizing

potentially deadly side effects. "

 

As it turns out, the maker of Risperdal, had 2 billion good reasons to

hide the dangers associated with the drug because Janssen earns about

$2.1 billion in annual sales from Risperda, according to the Miami Herald.

 

During his interview with Street Spirit, Mr Whitaker summed up the

devastating effects on society as a result of the marketing practices

promoting the sale of the new psych drugs:

 

" Unfortunately, the cost is dishonesty in our scientific literature,

the corruption of the FDA, and the absolute harm done to children in

this country drawn into this system, and an increase of 150,000 newly

disabled people every year in the United States for the last 17

years, " he said. " That's an incredible record of harm done. "

 

But worst of all, Mr Whitaker says: " No one says that the mental

health of the American people is getting better. "

 

For information for injured parties go to Lawyers and Settlements

 

________

 

E-Mail Evelyn Pringle at evelyn.pringle