Archive for February, 2011

Brain shrinkage seen in those taking antipsychotic medications

Monday, February 7th, 2011

Los Angeles Times, February 7, 2011

by Melissa Healy

A new study finds that one the fastest-growing classes of prescription drugs in the United States is linked to shrinkage in the brains of those who take it, raising some new questions about the widening use of antipsychotic medications.

Over a study period that spanned 14 years, 211 newly diagnosed schizophrenic patients had periodic brain scans that measured the volume of their brains overall, and of their brains’ principal component structures. Scanning each subject’s brain at least twice and as many as five times, researchers at the University of Iowa’s Carver College of Medicine sought to tease apart the factors that might contribute to a long-observed phenomenon: that patients with psychiatric disease—particularly those who suffer the delusional thinking, hallucinations and cognitive deficits of schizophrenia—appear to have smaller brains than those in good mental health.

What they found was that those whose treatment with antipsychotic medication was most “intensive”—those who took the largest doses over the longest time–had the greatest losses in brain volume. The intensity of a subject’s antipsychotic medication therapy was a far stronger predictor of brain-volume loss than was the severity of his or her psychiatric symptoms or of the extent of his or her illicit drug or alcohol abuse, the researchers found.

The volume losses were scattered throughout the brain, occurring in gray matter–the tightly packed clusters of brain cells that make up most of the brain’s lobes–as well as in the connective “white matter” that forms communication channels among the brain’s disparate regions and between its two hemispheres.

The study, published Monday in the Archives of General Psychiatry, comes against the backdrop of growing use of antipsychotic medications by younger and younger patients, as well as by patients with a wider range of psychiatric troubles, including anxiety or depression that has not yielded to first-line antidepressant drugs. Aggressive marketing of a new generation of antipsychotic drugs called the “atypicals” have made this class of drugs the top sellers in the U.S. prescription drug market, raking in $300.3 billion in sales in 2009 alone, according to IMS Health, which tracks trends in the healthcare and pharmaceutical markets.

The use of antipsychotic medications in treatment of a wider range of illnesses is also exposing more patients to these drugs, which also have been linked to metabolic changes and weight gain that can be extreme. In 2009, IMS Health estimates that U.S. consumers filled 52 million prescriptions for atypical antipsychotic medications, which account for the vast bulk of antipsychotic medications prescribed today.

“Given the sharp rise in antipsychotic utilization, especially among geriatric and pediatric populations, examining the possibility of antipsychotic brain tissue loss has important implications for assessing the risk benefit ratio in a large number of psychiatric patients,” the researchers wrote.

read the rest of the article here:  http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-antipsychotic-drugs-020711,0,123296.story

« Return to news items


Share

Psychiatric News — Antidepressants/Antismoking Drugs Linked to Violent Behavior

Friday, February 4th, 2011

Psychiatric News February 4, 2011
Volume 46 Number 3 Page 16

by Joan Arehart-Treichel

A psychiatrist with a particular interest in violence believes that psychiatrists should become aware that the antismoking medication varenicline and antidepressants have been linked with violent behavior.

The association was made by Thomas Moore, Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., and Curt Furberg, M.D., Ph.D. Moore is a senior scientist for drug safety and policy at the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) in Horsham, Pa. The ISMP is a nonprofit organization that educates health care providers and the public about safe medication practices. Glenmullen is a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and Furberg is a professor of public health sciences at Wake Forest University.

In a study published in the December 15, 2010, PloS One, the researchers used 2004 to 2009 data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System. They found that during the study period, 780,169 serious adverse events of one kind or another had been reported for 484 drugs, and that of those serious adverse events, 1,937 had been acts of violence. They defined a violent event as any case report containing one or more of the following items: homicide, physical assault, physical abuse, homicidal ideation, or violence-related symptom, but not more ambiguous descriptions such as crime, aggression, belligerence, or hostility.

The researchers then set out to see whether any of the 484 drugs had been disproportionally linked with the acts of violence. To be “disproportionally linked,” a drug had to be associated with at least five cases of violence, to have at least twice as many cases of violence associated with it as expected given the volume of overall adverse events reported for it, and statistical analysis had to indicate that the violence cases associated with it were unlikely to have occurred by chance.

The researchers found that 324 of the 484 drugs (67 percent) had no link with violence cases and that 86 of the drugs (18 percent) had links with only one or two cases of violence. However, 31 of the drugs (6 percent) were found to be disproportionally linked with violence cases. These drugs included varenicline, 11 antidepressants, three drugs for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and five hypnotics/sedatives.

Moreover, of the 484 drugs evaluated, varenicline had the largest number of violence cases, the highest proportion of violence cases (PRR = 18.0), and the highest statistical probability that the violence cases associated with it were not by chance (x2 = 5,172df = p<0.01).

Thus “varenicline had the strongest association with violence by every measure used in this study,” Moore and his colleagues pointed out. “In addition, antidepressant drugs showed consistently elevated risk, even when compared with antipsychotics and mood stabilizers. . . .”

Just because these drugs have been linked with cases of violent behavior does not prove that they actually promoted such behavior. Yet some of the varenicline-linked violence cases that Moore and his colleagues scrutinized suggested to them that there might be a causal connection. For example, the individuals in question started displaying psychiatric symptoms a few days after they had begun taking varenicline. They appeared to direct their violence senselessly, that is, at anybody who happened to be near them, and once they stopped taking varenicline, they stopped engaging in violent acts.

As Moore told Psychiatric News, both an earlier study his research group conducted and one by FDA researchers “noted that the onset of adverse effects for varenicline frequently occurs before the subject stops smoking,” implying that it is varenicline, not nicotine withdrawal, that prompts violent behavior. Still another reason to believe that it is the medication, not nicotine withdrawal, that leads to violent behavior is that “varenicline has a seven-day dose-escalation period prior to setting a target date to stop smoking,” Moore noted.

This study is “a preliminary review of adverse events . . . that indicate a risk of violence toward others,” Darrel Regier, M.D., M.P.H., director of APA’s Division of Research and executive director of the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education, told Psychiatric News. “[Also the findings come] from a historically difficult database to interpret—FDA adverse event data. . . . There is clearly a need to conduct prospective studies [to see whether the findings can] be confirmed. The same was true for the proported risk of suicidality associated with antidepressants.”

“This seems to be a reasonably good study with a high number [of medications evaluated] and a lot of double-checking,” Paul Fink, M.D., an expert in the study of violent behavior and a past APA president, commented. “I can tell you that as a psychiatrist who has practiced for a long time, I was unaware that [varenicline and antidepressants] had been linked with violence toward others. . . . Psychiatrists and mental health professionals need to be aware of this association.”

The study had no outside funding.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/46/3/16.1.full

“Prescription Drugs Associated With Reports of Violence Toward Others” is posted at <www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015337>. Graphic

« Return to news items


Share

Australian Medical Journal Bans Pharma Advertising

Thursday, February 3rd, 2011

Pharmalot – February 3, 2011

by Ed Silverman

Concerned about the influence advertising may have on physicians, an Australian medical journal will no longer accept paid ads about prescription drugs and has called on other journals to take the same stand.

The ads could “change the prescribing practices of doctors”, wrote editors George Jelinek and Anthony Brown wrote in an editorial. “It is time to show leadership and make a stand, and medical journals have a critical role to play in this. At Emergency Medicine Australasia, we have, therefore, drawn a line in the sand and have stopped all drug advertising forthwith. We invite other journals to show their support and follow suit by declaring their hand and doing the same.”

The ban followed discussions with other emergency medicine specialists, who worried aloud that advertised drugs were supported by evidence that was neither “of reasonable quality, nor independent.” There were cases of “dubious and unethical” research practices by pharma, including ghostwriting. And academics may face pressure to withhold negative research, which could “inflate views of the efficacy” of heavily promoted drugs.

The professors also expressed concern that ads run counter to a journal’s mission to provide objective data that enables docs to make judgments based on evidence. “Meanwhile doctors – and indeed journal editors – generally deny they are influenced, yet clearly they are,” they wrote. “Drug companies value drug advertising in medical journals because it works…generating at least $2 to $5 in revenues for every dollar spent.”

Australian law only permits drugmakers to run ads in medical journals, and about a dozen specialist and subscription-based magazines and newspapers that target healthcare professionals.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/02/australian-medical-journal-bans-pharma-advertising/

« Return to news items


Share

These Popular Drugs Can Make You Violent – Avoid Them

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

FoodConsumer.com

by Dr. Mercola

Some medications have been linked to an increased risk for violent, even homicidal behavior. A recent study identified 31 drugs that are disproportionately linked with violent behavior.  Time Magazine lists the top ten offenders:

  1. Varenicline (Chantix): The number one violence-inducing drug on the list, this anti-smoking medication is 18 times more likely to be linked with violence when compared to other drugs
  2. Fluoxetine (Prozac): This drug was the first well-known SSRI antidepressant
  3. Paroxetine (Paxil): Another SSRI antidepressant, Paxil is also linked with severe withdrawal symptoms and a risk of birth defects
  4. Amphetamines: (Various): Used to treat ADHD
  5. Mefoquine (Lariam): A treatment for malaria which is often linked with reports of strange behavior
  6. Atomoxetine (Strattera): An ADHD drug that affects the neurotransmitter noradrenaline
  7. Triazolam (Halcion): This potentially addictive drug is used to treat insomnia
  8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox): Another SSRI antidepressant
  9. Venlafaxine (Effexor): An antidepressant also used to treat anxiety disorders
  10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq): An antidepressant which affects both serotonin and noradrenalin

How legal drugs affect your mental state is a very important issue that is not getting the attention it deserves. In recent years, prescription rates for antidepressants and related drugs have skyrocketed.

About 230 million prescriptions for antidepressants are now filled each year, making them one of the most-prescribed drugs in the United States. But despite all of these prescription drugs being taken, more than one in 20 Americans are still depressed, according to the most recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The statistics alone should be a strong indication that what we’re doing is simply not working, and that instead, these drugs are contributing to other serious health problems—and play a significant role in senseless acts of violence.

Depression (which from a more holistic perspective can be described as un-repaired emotional short-circuiting) can devastate your health and life. However, using antidepressants as the primary or only treatment option is simply not advisable, especially if the one suffering from depression is a child or teenager.

Whereas severe depression can indeed progress to suicide if left untreated, antidepressant drugs have been shown to CAUSE both suicidal and homicidal thoughts and behaviors.

Now, a study by The Institute of Safe Medication Practices has identified 31 commonly-prescribed drugs that are disproportionately associated with cases of violent acts. Topping the list is the quit-smoking drug Chantix, followed by Prozac and Paxil, and drugs used to treat ADHD.

Chantix is a whopping 18 times more likely to be linked with violence compared to other drugs, with 408 reported incidents.

These figures were collected from the US FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and it’s well worth noting here that only an estimated one to 10 percent of all side effects are ever reported to VAERS. So the fact that 408 acts of violence were linked to the drug and then actually reported is pretty amazing, considering the fact that the vast majority of side effects, regardless of what they are, are blamed on something else and connections are brushed aside as “coincidental.”

Time Magazine also makes sure to state that these facts and figures do not mean that the drugs cause you to become violent. Rather we’re to believe that depressed people are a naturally violent bunch and they take these drugs to control their destructive moods in the first place, so (apparently) the drug just didn’t work for them.

Personally, I believe that’s wishful thinking at best and irresponsible justification to protect profits for dangerous drugs at worst.

In all, five of the top 10 most violence-inducing drugs are antidepressants and two are commonly-prescribed ADHD drugs. When you consider that these are among the most prescribed types of drugs in the US, the fact that so many of them are linked to increased rates of violence should be cause for pause…

Antidepressants PROVEN Ineffective—Why are they Still the Go-To Solution?

It’s interesting to note that while many alternative and complementary medical strategies are currently under heavy fire for being “unproven,” we still continue to prescribe drugs that have been scientifically proven to be as effective, or less, than a placebo

For example, alleged “safety concerns” over herbal medicines and questions about whether or not homeopathic remedies “actually work” have sparked a renewed drive in Europe to get many of these products off the market.

Meanwhile, various studies through the years have found that up to 75 percent of the benefits of antidepressants could be duplicated by a placebo! So not only do these drugs not work as advertised, but the evidence is also quite clear that most of these drugs increase your risk of suicide and violence.

Trying to reason this through logically is futile because it’s not based on logic. It’s based on money. Depression and ADHD are near limitless gold mines for pharmaceutical companies. There is no diagnostic test for either of these problems, and literally anyone who exhibits, or claims to have, certain symptoms can be labeled depressed or ADHD and be given drugs to treat the symptoms.

This too is a very important point: antidepressants are modifiers, not cures. They do not in ANY way whatsoever treat the root cause of depression. These drugs act as sedatives or stimulants—they’re NOT actually “correcting” an underlying imbalance.

Most of you have probably heard that depression is due to a “chemical imbalance in your brain,” which these drugs are designed to correct. Unfortunately for anyone who has ever swallowed this marketing ploy, this is NOT a scientific statement.

Medical journalist and Pulitzer Prize nominee Robert Whitaker explained the background of this oft-used but deceptive claim in my interview with him last year:

“The low serotonin theory arose because they understood how the drugs acted on the brain. But it was just a hypothesis borne to try to explain why the drug might be fixing something. They investigated whether people had low serotonin…[But] in 1983, NIMH concluded that there is no evidence that there is anything wrong in the serotonergic system of depressed patients…

So there was never any evidence that people with depression characteristically had low levels of serotonin.”

I think that we need to take a step back and remember that when you’re facing life’s ups and downs there’s nothing wrong with feeling blue now and again. It’s a part of normal life, and in some cases depression is a sign that your LIFE is unbalanced, not your brain!

Accepting your feelings, whatever they may be, is one of the reasons why the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) works so well.

The Many Dangerous Side-Effects of Antidepressants

Increased risk of suicide and violence are not the only risk factors to take into account when considering taking an antidepressant. They can also harm your immune system, and raise your risk of type 2 diabetes by two to three times in high-risk groups.

Worse yet, they can CAUSE or worsen actual mental illness, and can lead to mental decline with long term use…

Robert Whitaker discussed this at length in my interview with him and you can also read more about this in his new book Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America:

“There are two side effects or risks that really need to be addressed, and that everybody should be thinking about, that show up in the scientific literature,” he said.

“The first risk is that you’ll convert from unipolar depression to bipolar depression.

… One of the things we’ve seen with the use of the SSRIs is this incredible, extraordinary boom in bipolar diagnoses, and that is definitely tied to the widespread use of antidepressants.

Now, in kids, something like 25 to 50 percent of all kids placed on an antidepressant, who stay on that antidepressant for five years, will convert to bipolar illness. With adults, it seems like about 25 percent of long term of users that begin with a diagnosis of unipolar depression will convert to bipolar.

… The second real risk is that there is a lot of evidence compiling [showing] that if you stay on antidepressants for five, ten, fifteen years, there is some real worry with cognitive decline associated with that long term use.”

Dr. Mercola is the founder of the world’s most visited natural health web site, Mercola.com. You can learn the hazardous side effects of OTC Remedies by getting a FREE copy of his latest special report The Dangers of Over the Counter Remedies by going to his Report Page.

Read the rest of the article  here: http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Drug/drugs_violence_0201110736.html

« Return to news items


Share