The crooks of Disease Care Industry

Kulapavana · September 21, 2005

Source: The New York Times

Published: September 21, 2005

A government-financed study has provided the strongest evidence yet that the system for approving and promoting drugs is badly out of whack. The study compared five drugs used to treat schizophrenia and found that most of the newest, most heavily prescribed drugs were no better than an older drug that is far cheaper. The nation is wasting billions of dollars on heavily marketed drugs that have never proved themselves in head-to-head competition against cheaper competitors.

The whole class of antipsychotic drugs has had undeniable value in blunting the symptoms of schizophrenia, enabling many patients to leave mental hospitals and move into the community. But the first generation of these drugs fell into disfavor because they often caused neurological side effects, like tremors and other involuntary movements.

That spurred the development of a new generation of drugs known as atypical antipsychotics, which now dominate the market and rake in some $10 billion in annual sales. The trouble is that these new drugs were approved largely on the basis of short-term clinical trials that compared them primarily with placebos, so there was little if any evidence that they were any better than many of the older drugs.

That gap has been filled by an 18-month clinical trial involving more than 1,400 adults around the nation. The study, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, measured how long patients were able to keep taking their assigned drugs before deciding to change, usually because a drug wasn't working or had intolerable side effects. Three-fourths of the patients, a shocking number, stopped taking the drug they had been given, suggesting that there is a clear need for better treatments.

The study found that the oldest drug, perphenazine, was as effective and caused no worse side effects than three of the newer drugs. Zyprexa, a new drug made by Eli Lilly, helped patients control symptoms slightly better than the others, but at the cost of serious side effects.

Doctors should find a trove of useful data in the study to help them decide which drug might be best for a particular patient. But Congress and the Bush administration ought to pay attention as well. Surely it would make sense to force manufacturers to test their drugs not just against placebos, but against existing drugs that they are seeking to displace. And surely it would be cost-effective for the government to sponsor large studies comparing a slew of expensive drugs with their cheaper alternatives.