30 West Mission Street
Suite 2
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 201-2909
Fax (805) 201-2931
info@sbchiropractic.com
 

What's Behind Your Bathroom Mirror?
Antidepressants are only slightly more effective than sugar pills, Research Shows

We’ve all been conditioned to refer to that as the ‘medicine cabinet,’ right?

When did it become necessary to have a stockpile of drugs in our home in order to ensure our health?  It may be time to rethink the way that we address our health concerns and the approaches that we use to stay healthy.

As research continues to emerge on the efficacy of prescription drugs, an alarming pattern seems to emerge.  The advertising and marketing used by drug companies is not backed by the research.

Alarmed?...Read On.

The makers of antidepressants like Prozac and Paxil never published the results of about a third of the drug trials that they conducted to win government approval, misleading doctors and consumers about the drugs’ true effectiveness, a new analysis has found.

In published trials, about 60 percent of people taking the drugs report significant relief from depression, compared with roughly 40 percent of those on placebo pills. But when the less positive, unpublished trials are included, the advantage shrinks: the drugs outperform placebos, but by a modest margin, concludes the new report, which appears Thursday in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Previous research had found a similar bias toward reporting positive results for a variety of medications; and many researchers have questioned the reported effectiveness of antidepressants. But the new analysis, reviewing data from 74 trials involving 12 drugs, is the most thorough to date. And it documents a large difference: while 94 percent of the positive studies found their way into print, just 14 percent of those with disappointing or uncertain results did.

The finding is likely to inflame a continuing debate about how drug trial data is reported. In 2004, after revelations that negative findings from antidepressant trials had not been published, a group of leading journals agreed to stop publishing clinical trials that were not registered in a public database. Trade groups representing the world’s largest drug makers announced that members’ companies would begin to release more data from trials more quickly, on their own database, clinicalstudyresults.org.

And last year, Congress passed legislation that expanded the type of trials and the depth of information that must be submitted to clinicaltrials.gov, a public database operated by the National Library of Medicine. The Food and Drug Administration’s Web site provides limited access to recent reviews of drug trials, but critics say it is very hard to navigate.

“This is a very important study for two reasons,” said Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen, editor in chief of The New England Journal. “One is that when you prescribe drugs, you want to make sure you’re working with best data possible; you wouldn’t buy a stock if you only knew a third of the truth about it.”

"Second," Dr. Drazen continued, “we need to show respect for the people who enter a trial.”

“They take some risk to be in the trial, and then the drug company hides the data?” he asked. “That kind of thing gets us pretty passionate about this issue.”

Alan Goldhammer, deputy vice president for regulatory affairs at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said the new study neglected to mention that industry and government had already taken steps to make clinical trial information more transparent. “This is all based on data from before 2004, and since then we’ve put to rest the myth that companies have anything to hide,” he said.

In the study, a team of researchers identified all antidepressant trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration to win approval from 1987 to 2004. The studies involved 12,564 adult patients testing drugs like Prozac from Eli Lilly, Zoloft from Pfizer and Effexor from Wyeth.

The researchers obtained unpublished data on the more recently approved drugs from the F.D.A.’s Web site. For older drugs, they tracked down hard copies of unpublished studies through colleagues, or using the Freedom of Information Act. They checked all of these studies against databases of published research, and also wrote to the companies that conducted the studies to ask if specific trials had been published.

They found that 37 of 38 trials that the F.D.A. viewed as having positive results were published in journals. The agency viewed as failed or unconvincing 36 other trials, of which 14 made it into journals.

But 11 of those 14 journal articles “conveyed a positive outcome” that was not justified by the underlying F.D.A. review, said the new study’s lead author, Dr. Erick H. Turner, a psychiatrist and former F.D.A. reviewer who now works at Oregon Health and Sciences University and the Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center. His co-authors included researchers at Kent State University and the University of California, Riverside.

Dr. Turner said the selective reporting of favorable studies sets up patients for disappointment. “The bottom line for people considering an antidepressant, I think, is that they should be more circumspect about taking it,” he said, “and not be so shocked if it doesn’t work the first time and think something’s wrong with them.”

For doctors, he said, “They end up asking, ‘How come these drugs seem to work so well in all these studies, and I’m not getting that response?’ ”

Dr. Thomas P. Laughren, director of the division of psychiatry products at the F.D.A., said the agency had long been aware that favorable studies of drugs were more likely to be published.

“It’s a problem we’ve been struggling with for years,” he said in an interview. “I have no problem with full access to all trial data; the question for us is how do you fit it all on a package insert,” the information that accompanies many drugs.
Dr. Donald F. Klein, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Columbia, said drug makers were not the only ones who can be reluctant to publish unconvincing results. Journals, and study authors, too, may drop studies that are underwhelming.

“If it’s your private data, and you don’t like how it came out, well, we shouldn’t be surprised that some doctors don’t submit those studies,” he said.

Because of an editing error, an article on Jan. 17, 2008, about a new report on publication of drug company studies of antidepressants referred imprecisely to one of its findings. The report, in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that Eli Lilly had presented one study of its antidepressant Prozac as positive, even though a review of the study by the Food and Drug Administration determined that the drug did not perform as well as a placebo.

"People may be better off exploring other treatment options such as psychotherapy or exercise, which has been shown to reduce depression. And the side effect of physical exercise is better health. That is much better than the loss of sexual function, tremors, agitation, diarrhea, and nausea that are side effects of SSRIs" states lead researcher Irving Kirsch, PhD.

Psychologist Roger P. Greenberg, PhD, says it is understandable that the SSRIs have become so popular in such a short time, despite the lack of data showing them to be effective. Both patients and their physicians, he adds, have adopted a "fast-mood mentality," where the quick fix is expected for the treatment of depression.

Adapted from an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine


In This Issue
New! Alimtox Ionic Foot Cleanse Treatment
What's Behind Your Bathroom Mirror?
Allergies...Nothing to Sneeze At
Dr. Nicole's Kid Corder: Holistic Approaches to Ear Infections
Acorn Squash Soup

» Article Library


Sign Up

Sign up for our monthly newsletter and stay informed with the latest healthcare tips, recipes, and more!

Email:
We respect your privacy and will not share your e-mail address with anyone.

Newsletter Archives

  » August 16, 2011
  » October 27, 2010
  » July 21, 2010
  » January 20, 2010
  » August 31, 2009
  » May 22, 2009
  » March 18, 2009
  » December 10, 2008
  » October 22, 2008
  » September 17, 2008
  » August 29, 2008
  » June 25, 2008
  » May 14, 2008
  » April 23, 2008

» More  


Home | Meet Your Doctors | First Visit | Chiropractic FAQ | Newsletter | Community Links | Directions

©2009 Barry Family Chiropractic, All Rights Reserved
Site Designed by Jaimi Kercher Photography
Sidebar Photographs ©2009 Jaimi Kercher Photography