Posts Tagged ‘antipsychotic’

Whistleblower says antipsychotic drug maker subverted science & induced others to betray patients

Friday, January 20th, 2012

“Janssen ran amok,” Allen Jones, the Pennsylvania-based whistleblower on J&J’s marketing practices who was a plaintiff along with state of Texas, told reporters in the Austin courthouse.

“They trashed the Johnson & Johnson credo and they misused Texas and, I believe, well-meaning officials, to further their marketing aims,” Jones said. “They subverted science and they induced others to betray the people they were supposed to be taking care of. To me that is reprehensible.”

January 20, 2012/Reuters

J&J to pay $158 million to settle Texas Risperdal case

Johnson & Johnson said on Thursday it will pay $158 million to settle a Texas lawsuit accusing the drugmaker of improperly marketing its Risperdal anti-psychotic drug to state residents on the Medicaid health program for the poor.

The settlement fully resolves all Risperdal-related claims in Texas, the company said. The agreement is specific to the state of Texas and does not involve other ongoing state or federal Risperdal litigation.

The deal settles claims brought by Texas in 2004 and involves alleged Medicaid overpayments during the years 1994 to 2008 “and will circumvent potentially lengthy and costly appellate activities,” according to a statement from J&J’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit.

The settlement will be paid to the original plaintiff, his attorneys, the state of Texas and the federal government, which provides Medicaid reimbursements, the company said.

The complaint against J&J and several of its units filed in U.S. district court in Texas had alleged company representatives “targeted every level of the Texas Medicaid Program with misrepresentations about the safety, superiority, efficacy, appropriate uses and cost effectiveness of Risperdal.”

“Janssen ran amok,” Allen Jones, the Pennsylvania-based whistleblower on J&J’s marketing practices who was a plaintiff along with state of Texas, told reporters in the Austin courthouse.

“They trashed the Johnson & Johnson credo and they misused Texas and, I believe, well-meaning officials, to further their marketing aims,” Jones said. “They subverted science and they induced others to betray the people they were supposed to be taking care of. To me that is reprehensible.”

The deal marks the first Risperdal settlement with any U.S. state, Janssen spokeswoman Teresa Mueller said.

J&J’s once sterling reputation has been battered in the past two years over quality control problems at several of its plants and manufacturing errors that led to massive recalls of a wide variety of its products, including hip replacements, contact lenses, insulin cartridges and heart devices.

Its biggest black eye came from its McNeil consumer healthcare unit, which in a series recalls was forced to pull hundreds of millions of bottles and packages of popular medicines, such as Children’s Tylenol, Motrin, Rolaids and Benadryl.

J&J shares were down 28 cents, or 0.4 percent, at $65 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

« Return to news items


Share

U.S. to Force Drug Firms to Report Money Paid to Doctors

Monday, January 16th, 2012

The New York Times – January 16, 2012

by Robert Pear

The new standards carry out legislation championed by Senators Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin. The legislation was included in the 2010 health care overhaul. “The goal is to let the sun shine in and make information available to foster accountability,” Mr. Grassley said.

WASHINGTON — To head off medical conflicts of interest, the Obama administration is poised to require drug companies to disclose the payments they make to doctors for research, consulting, speaking, travel and entertainment.

Many researchers have found evidence that such payments can influence doctors’ treatment decisions and contribute to higher costs by encouraging the use of more expensive drugs and medical devices.

Consumer advocates and members of Congress say patients may benefit from the new standards, being issued by the government under the new health care law. Federal officials said the disclosures increased the likelihood that doctors would make decisions in the best interests of patients, without regard to the doctors’ financial interests.

Large numbers of doctors receive payments from drug and device companies every year — sometimes into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars — in exchange for providing advice and giving lectures. Analyses by The New York Times and others have found that about a quarter of doctors take cash payments from drug or device makers and that nearly two-thirds accept routine gifts of food, including lunch for staff members and dinner for themselves.

The Times has found that doctors who take money from drug makers often practice medicine differently from those who do not and that they are more willing to prescribe drugs in risky and unapproved ways, such as prescribing powerful antipsychotic medicines for children.

Under the new standards, if a company has just one product covered by Medicare or Medicaid, it will have to disclose all its payments to doctors other than its own employees. The federal government will post the payment data on a Web site where it will be available to the public.

Manufacturers of prescription drugs and devices will have to report if they pay a doctor to help develop, assess and promote new products — or if, for example, a pharmaceutical sales agent delivers $25 worth of bagels and coffee to a doctor’s office for a meeting. Royalty payments to doctors, for inventions or discoveries, and payments to teaching hospitals for research or other activities will also have to be reported.

The Obama administration estimates that more than 1,100 drug, device and medical supply companies will have to file reports, generating “large amounts of new data.” Federal officials said they would inspect and audit drug company records to make sure the reports were accurate and complete.

Companies will be subject to a penalty up to $10,000 for each payment they fail to report. A company that knowingly fails to report payments will be subject to a penalty up to $100,000 for each violation, up to a total of $1 million a year.

Top executives are potentially liable because a senior official of each company — the chief executive, chief financial officer or chief compliance officer — must attest to the accuracy of each report.

The new requirements, or something very similar, will take effect soon; in fact, they are overdue. Under the new health care law, the administration was supposed to establish payment-reporting procedures by Oct. 1, 2011. The public will have until Feb. 17 to comment on the proposals, which are broadly consistent with the expectations of industry and consumer groups. After considering the comments, Medicare officials will issue final rules with the force of law.

Consumer advocates have long demanded details of the financial ties between doctors and drug and device companies.

Allan J. Coukell, a pharmacist and consumer advocate at the Pew Charitable Trusts, said: “Patients want to know they are getting treatment based on medical evidence, not a lunch or a financial relationship. They want to know if their doctor has a financial relationship with a pharmaceutical company, but they are often uncomfortable asking the doctor directly.”

In an introduction to the proposed rules, the Obama administration says that patients can benefit when doctors and the industry work together to develop life-saving drugs and devices. But, it said, these relationships can also “lead to conflicts of interests that may affect clinical decision-making” and “threaten the underlying integrity of the health care system.”

The administration does not try to define the difference between proper and improper payments. It says simply that public reporting of the financial ties between doctors and drug and device companies “will permit patients to make better-informed decisions when choosing health care professionals and making treatment decisions.”

The new standards carry out legislation championed by Senators Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin. The legislation was included in the 2010 health care overhaul.

“The goal is to let the sun shine in and make information available to foster accountability,” Mr. Grassley said.

Christopher L. White, executive vice president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, which represents makers of medical devices, said the payment data could be used by federal law enforcement agencies, plaintiffs’ lawyers and whistleblowers.

“Some companies fear that doctors may no longer want to engage in consulting arrangements, and such reluctance could chill innovation,” Mr. White said.

Medicare and Medicaid, the programs for older Americans, the disabled and the poor, spend more than $100 billion a year on drugs and devices.

Although the Congressional Budget Office does not predict immediate savings, it has said that, “over time, disclosure has the potential to reduce spending,” by reducing instances of overprescribing.

As an example of inappropriate payments, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services cited a case in which manufacturers of medical devices had provided financial incentives — in the form of consulting agreements, lavish trips and other perks — to induce doctors to use particular hip and knee replacement products. Under a civil settlement with the government, the companies agreed to new compliance procedures.

The law also requires drug and device companies to report the amount of “any ownership or investment interest” held by doctors or their immediate family members, other than holdings of publicly traded stocks.

The administration intends to apply the same disclosure requirements to doctor-owned companies that distribute medical devices. Such companies allow doctors to benefit financially from sales of devices they use in surgery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/health/policy/us-to-tell-drug-makers-to-disclose-payments-to-doctors.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

« Return to news items


Share

J&J to Agree to $1B Accord in Risperdal Probe

Thursday, January 5th, 2012

Bloomberg News – January 5, 2012

By Margaret Cronin Fisk, Jef Feeley and David Voreacos

 Johnson & Johnson will pay more than $1 billion to the U.S. and most states to resolve a civil investigation into marketing of the antipsychotic Risperdal, according to people familiar with the matter.

J&J, the world’s largest health products company, reached an accord last week with the U.S. attorney in Philadelphia, according to the people, who weren’t authorized to speak about the matter. It doesn’t resolve negotiations over a possible criminal plea, they said.

The U.S. government has been investigating Risperdal sales practices since 2004, including allegations the company marketed the drug for unapproved uses, J&J has said in Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The company said it has been in negotiations with the U.S. to settle this investigation.

J&J, based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, disclosed in August that it reached an agreement to settle a misdemeanor criminal charge related to Risperdal marketing. The company is in negotiations to pay about $400 million more to settle this portion of the investigation, one of the people said.

“We’re not going to comment on rumor or speculation,” Teresa Mueller, a J&J spokeswoman, said in a phone interview.

Company officials said in an SEC filing in May that they had reserved funds to resolve the government’s claims over Risperdal marketing. The company didn’t say how much had been set aside. The drugmaker said in an August filing it added an unspecified amount to the reserve to cover criminal penalties.

Accord Announcement

When the final settlement will be announced isn’t clear. The Justice Department typically announces civil and criminal resolutions at the same time in corporate cases.

A majority of U.S. states will join the settlement, the people said. Which ones will accept the final agreement hasn’t been determined, they said. Each state can decide whether to join the federal government’s settlement or pursue its own case.

Typically, states with cases in court continue to pursue their own. Texas alone is asking for more than $1 billion in a case that goes to trial next week.

J&J and its Janssen unit have been sued by 12 states, including Texas, South Carolina and Louisiana, over Risperdal marketing. The attorneys general of the other states “have indicated a potential interest in pursuing similar litigation against” Janssen, J&J said in its quarterly SEC filing in November.

A jury in Louisiana, weighing only the claim that the company downplayed the drug’s risks, awarded that state $257.7 million in 2010. A South Carolina judge last year ordered J&J to pay $327 million over Risperdal sold in the state.

Texas Suit

The Texas lawsuit, which involves additional allegations including off-label marketing, goes to trial next week.

“Discussions have been ongoing in an effort to resolve criminal penalties under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act related to the promotion of Risperdal,” J&J said in its August SEC filing. “Certain issues remain open before a settlement can be finalized.”

“The ultimate resolution of the above criminal and these civil matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the company’s financial position,” J&J officials said in the filing.

The agreement in principle on the criminal charge is “pursuant to a single misdemeanor violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,” the company said.

Risperdal is a member of a class of drugs, known as atypical antipsychotics, that includes Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly & Co.’s Zyprexa and London-based AstraZeneca Plc’s Seroquel.

Lilly, AstraZeneca and two other J&J competitors making these drugs have paid $2.7 billion to resolve government marketing claims, particularly that the companies pushed the drugs for unapproved uses.

Lilly paid more than $1.7 billion to resolve state and federal investigations over Zyprexa and AstraZeneca Plc has paid almost $590 million. Pfizer paid $301 million for its drug Geodon.

–With assistance from Alex Nussbaum in New York. Editors: Charles Carter, John Pickering

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/j-j-to-agree-to-1b-accord-in-risperdal-probe.html

 

« Return to news items


Share

Record Breaking $327 Million Verdict Upheld Against Manufacturer of Antipsychotic Risperdal—Request for New Trial Denied

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

PR Newswire – December 21, 2011

(Click image for international warnings on antipsychotic drugs) The "dear doctor" letter, sent to more than 7,000 doctors across South Carolina, and the package insert were found to be misleading about the safety and effectiveness of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

The jury verdict in the case of State of South Carolina versus Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Johnson & Johnson, Inc. has been upheld and requests for a new trial denied, affirming groundbreaking $327 million in civil penalties against the manufacturers of the drug Risperdal.

Circuit Court Judge Roger Couch announced the rulings on December 20 through two written orders. One order denies the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial; the second order denies the defendant’s motion to alter or amend the judgment and/or for a new trial. John B. White, Jr. and Donald C. Coggins, Jr. of Harrison, White, Smith & Coggins, P.C., a Spartanburg-based law firm, along with John Simmons of the Simmons Law Firm, a Columbia-based law firm, and Bailey Perrin Bailey, a Texas based law firm represented South Carolina in the case.

“We are obviously very pleased with Judge Couch’s decision and his careful consideration of this matter,” stated John B. White, Jr. one of the attorneys representing the state in the case. “The verdict handed down by the jury is just and speaks the truth. The damages awarded further substantiated the level of deception Janssen used in business practices in our state. Once again, we have sent a clear message to drug companies that deceptive business practices will not be tolerated in South Carolina.”

On March 22, 2011 a jury in the Spartanburg Court of Common Pleas found that New Jersey-based Janssen willfully violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act by engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce in the “dear doctor” letter of November 10, 2003 and the drug label (package insert). This decision represents the first jury verdict that finds the defendant violated unfair trade practices since the inception of its pharmaceutical product. The “dear doctor” letter, sent to more than 7,000 doctors across South Carolina, and the package insert were found to be misleading about the safety and effectiveness of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal. Risperdal was introduced by Janssen in 1994 and by 2005, generated annual revenues in excess of $3.5 billion.

On June 3, 2011 civil penalties amounting to $327,073,700 were ordered by Circuit Court Judge Roger Couch based upon violations found with the drug labels and “dear doctor” letters. Regarding the drug label violations, the judge ruled that 509,499 package inserts were distributed with sample boxes, and levied $300 per violation for a total drug label awarded damages of $152,849,700. Regarding the “dear doctor” letter violations, the judge ruled that 7,184 letters were mailed and 36,372 were provided during sales calls, and levied $4000 per violation for a total “dear doctor” letter awarded damages of $174,224,000.

The combination of the drug label and letter damages of $327,073,700 amounts to the highest verdict brought against Janssen for the drug Risperdal.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/record-breaking-327-million-verdict-upheld-in-janssen-case-and-request-for-new-trial-denied-2011-12-21

« Return to news items


Share

ABC News: Doctors Put Foster Children at Risk With Mind-Altering Drugs

Thursday, December 1st, 2011

December 1, 2011
by BRINDA ADHIKARI, JOAN MARTELLI and SARAH KOCH
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Across America, doctors are putting foster children on powerful, mind-altering drugs at rates up to 13 times that of children in the general population. What’s more, doctors are prescribing foster children drugs at doses beyond what the Food and Drug Administration has approved, sometimes in potentially dangerous combinations, according to a new report by the federal Government Accountability Office.

“It’s just almost beyond comprehension,” said Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., who asked for the GAO investigation. “We want the doctors and nurses that are prescribing these medicines to look at their behavior and think and ask this question. Are we doing something wrong here?”

In Florida, regulator Gabriel Myers, killed himself in 2009 after being prescribed a powerful mix of psychotropic medication.

In Florida, regulators have been grappling with that question since a 7-year-old boy, Gabriel Myers, killed himself in 2009 after being prescribed a powerful mix of psychotropic medication.

His psychiatrist, Dr. Sohail Punjwani, had, at different times, prescribed two drugs that carry black box labels — warning of the need to carefully monitor patients because of the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in children, which call for careful monitoring. However, even though Gabriel visited Punjwani’s office seven times, his foster father said Gabriel usually only spent about five minutes talking to the doctor.

Gabriel’s death was ruled an accident, but investigators pointed to the possibility that the medication may have contributed to his death. The tragedy triggered a storm of outrage across the state.

“I don’t accept that the only way to reach a child who is 7 years old is through psychotropic drugs,” said Florida Sen. Ronda Storm, during hearings over Gabriel’s death. “I do not accept that.”

The boy’s doctor settled a lawsuit in 2010 accusing him of prescribing a toxic cocktail of psychotropic drugs to a 16-year-old patient, who suffered a sudden heart attack and died. Punjwani settled that case but admitted no wrongdoing.

Additionally, Punjwani was arrested for driving under the influence and cocaine possession. He pleaded not guilty to those charges but went through a court-ordered rehabilitation program.

When ABC News caught up with Dr. Punjwani, he told us, “Sad stories happen but that does not mean that everything else the doctor is responsible for it because we are in the business of taking care of these children,” he said.

Antipsychotic medication, which can cause a litany of health problems such as severe weight gain, an increased risk of diabetes and irreversible movement disorders, is among the top-selling drugs in America.

Four drug makers have paid a total of more than $2 billion to settle claims they illegally marketed antipsychotics to children. All deny wrongdoing.

“How do antipsychotics, drugs supposedly for people who have lost touch with reality, how do they develop such a wide market?” said neuropsychiatrist Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, who won millions of dollars as a key whistleblower against drug companies.

There have been very limited long-term studies on antipsychotics in children. And for drugs already on the market, the duration of the studies that were used to get FDA approval for children have been as short as three to six weeks.

ABC News interviewed a social worker now working in a state foster care system, who asked not to be identified.

“Every child that I saw was basically on some type of psychotropic medication,” the social worker told ABC News. “It’s much easier to medicate a child than it is to physically restrain them, than it is to pay $200 an hour to a therapist to talk through their problems with them.”

Read the reset of the article here

Watch the year-long investigation tonight on “World News with Diane Sawyer” at 6:30 p.m. ET and then see more on “20/20,” Friday at 10 p.m. ET.

« Return to news items


Share

J&J drug protocols cost taxpayers millions—Lawsuit claims Investigator fired after going public on J&J’s anti-psychotic drug campaign

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

The Daily Record, by Michael L. Diamond
November 22, 2011

Allen Jones was curious.

Why did Pennsylvania use a computer program that often pointed to a Johnson & Johnson drug over other, cheaper medicine to treat certain mental illnesses, the investigator for the Keystone State’s Office of Inspector General wanted to know (article continued below video)

Video: Whistleblower Allen Jones on pharmaceutical ties to nation wide efforts to screen children for ‘mental disorders’

(Cont…) While the computer program mandated doctors use a new line of anti-psychotic drugs, including Risperdal, sold by J&J’s subsidiary Janssen companies, Jones said he couldn’t find government-funded medical studies showing that these new drugs were any more effective than their generic predecessors.

Jones’ 2002 inquiry into the drug added to a chain of events that ultimately led Texas to sue New Jersey-based health care giant Johnson & Johnson on claims it orchestrated a multimillion-dollar violation of the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act.

Jones said in an interview that it was his belief that the company “substituted opinion for science.”

Johnson & Johnson’s sales strategy turned Risperdal, a drug approved by the FDA to treat only schizophrenia and bipolar disease, into a blockbuster that the company sold for those illnesses and, unlawfully, many more, according to the Texas lawsuit.

Risperdal cost substantially more than older, generic drugs and generated more than $25 billion for the company before its patent expired in 2007, according to court records. But the drug often was no more effective at treating mental disorders than older drugs, the National Institute of Mental Health found. Because Medicare and Medicaid paid many of the bills, it cost taxpayers millions, according to federal and state lawsuits.

Twelve states, including Pennsylvania and Texas, have sued Janssen to recover some of the money they spent on Risperdal. South Carolina and Louisiana each were awarded more than $250 million last year. The case brought by Pennsylvania, where Jones first made his discovery, was dismissed in June 2010 after a state judge ruled prosecutors didn’t provide enough evidence. West Virginia lost its case on appeal. The cases in Louisiana and Pennsylvania have been appealed. The company said it intends to appeal the case in South Carolina. Texas and the seven remaining cases are awaiting trial.

The U.S. Justice Department also is investigating the marketing of Risperdal. J&J said in an August filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is negotiating a settlement and has agreed, “in principal,” to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. No plea has been made yet.

New Jersey hasn’t filed a lawsuit. It isn’t clear how much the state spent on Risperdal in the last 10 years. New Jersey’s Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services refused to provide the information unless the Asbury Park Press paid a $5,071 processing fee. The Press declined to pay the fee.

The Risperdal legal dispute is an example of a problem that is endemic in the pharmaceutical industry, some doctors say. Government-funded studies about the drug’s effectiveness weren’t published until more than a decade after the drug was first approved.

In the case of Risperdal, “we’re spending money on a drug that isn’t superior and might be inferior to other drugs that cost a fraction as much,” said Dr. John David Abramson, a health care policy expert at Harvard University and author of “Overdosed America,” who investigated the drug for Louisiana’s lawsuit.

“It ought to make honest citizens … want to throw up to see that this money is being extracted from society for no gain, when our country is headed toward financial ruin,” Abramson said.

Whistle-blower fired

Allen Jones, the Pennsylvania investigator, was fired in 2004 after going public with his claims, but he continued to investigate, eventually becoming a plaintiff and whistle-blower in a Texas state lawsuit against Janssen. That trial is scheduled to start Jan. 9.

Risperdal was approved by the FDA in 1993 to treat patients with schizophrenia and, a decade later, patients with bipolar disorder. Janssen, on its website, also says the drug can help treat some symptoms of autism in children and adolescents.

With it came the chance for Janssen to replace Haldol, an anti-psychotic drug that Belgian scientist Paul Janssen himself helped develop in the 1950s, just before Johnson & Johnson bought his company in 1961.

Older anti-psychotic drugs had been available in generic form for decades. Risperdal and a new generation of anti-psychotics came to market in the 1990s at a cost that far exceeded the older drugs, according to the Texas lawsuit.

J&J said Risperdal not only would be safer and more effective than the first generation of anti-psychotic drugs, but also could treat mental disorders other than schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, according to the Texas lawsuit.

Janssen’s medical studies weren’t conclusive enough for the FDA to claim Risperdal was more effective than either Haldol and its generic versions or the new anti-psychotic medicine on the market, the Texas lawsuit said.

Unable to tout Risperdal’s superiority, Janssen got the message to doctors anyway, according to legal documents and interviews. The methods included:

Middlemen. Johnson & Johnson teamed with Omnicare, the nation’s largest pharmacy manager for long-term care facilities, to ensure Omnicare’s pharmacists would recommend Johnson & Johnson’s drugs, according to a lawsuit against J&J filed in Massachusetts in 2010 by the U.S. Justice Department.

Omnicare cared for 1.4 million clients in 47 states. Its annual purchases of Johnson & Johnson drugs climbed from $100 million in 1999 to $280 million in 2004. And its purchases of Risperdal alone exceeded $100 million a year, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims J&J paid Omnicare tens of millions of dollars in grants, rebates, sponsorships and educational funding — payments that the federal government considered kickbacks.

A substantial portion of the prescriptions were paid by taxpayers through Medicaid, the government said. (Omnicare in 2009 agreed to pay $98 million and settle separate charges by the U.S. that it took kickbacks from J&J. The company didn’t admit wrongdoing).

Read the rest of the article here

« Return to news items


Share

Canadian Kids are All on Drugs

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

The Mark – November 14, 2011

Kids as young as six are being prescribed powerful antipsychotic drugs

The number of prescriptions for antipsychotic drugs for kids in Canada more than doubled between 2005 and 2010. A study in the journal Pediatrics & Child Health shows that the number of prescriptions jumped 114 per cent across those years, despite most antipsychotics not being cleared for use in Canada among people younger than 17. The drugs are used to offset the symptoms of attention deficit hyperactive disorder, autism, mood disorders, and all manner of behavioural problems in kids as young as six. According to Postmedia‘s Sharon Kirkey and Pamela Fayerman:

Once reserved for schizophrenia and mania in adults, one antipsychotic alone, risperidone, was recommended by Canadian-office-based doctors for children 17 and younger a total of 340,670 times in 2010 – a near-doubling since 2006 – according to data provided to Postmedia News from prescription-drug tracking firm IMS Brogan.

Not too surprisingly, the level of prescriptions has some doctors wondering if these drugs are being overprescribed. Complicating matters are the side effects of the drugs, which can lead to rapid weight gain, pre-diabetes, obesity, tremors, and more. Likewise, long-term studies on the drugs’ effects on kids’ health aren’t readily available.

Get the facts about antipsychotic drugs here

http://www.themarknews.com/news/?open=7441

« Return to news items


Share

FDA Needs to Ban Antipsychotic Drug Use on Kids

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

Note from CCHR:  While the FDA and its Pediatric advisory panel sit around pondering if one antipsychotic drug is more likely to cause diabetes in children than another while continuing their stall tactic of  “let’s study it some more ” routine, we’d like to point out the simple solution:  Considering that  antipsychotic drugs are already documented by international drug regulatory agencies to cause not only diabetes but obesity, psychosis, blood clots, heart problems, cardiac events, seizures, toxicity, confusion, coma and stroke (and that’s just in kids) as well as brain atrophy (meaning they actually shrink brains); considering there is no medical test to prove any child has a brain malfunction, chemical imbalance or any physical condition requiring the administration of these lethal drugs—and considering these drugs are literally killing kids that have nothing medically wrong with them in the first place— Do the job you are paid by U.S. Taxpayers to do and BAN their use on children.   Period.

GAITHERSBURG, Maryland (Reuters) – U.S. pediatric health advisers on Thursday urged drug regulators to continue studying weight gain and other side-effects of antipsychotic drugs as they are increasingly taken by children.

Significant numbers of U.S. children are receiving drugs to tame aggression, attention deficit disorder and other mental problems, even though there is little conclusive data to show exactly how the medications work or whether they damage kids’ health.

Similar to the recommendations the panel has made in previous years, it voted 16-1 to support the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s routine safety monitoring of the new generation of antipsychotics.

But the panel did so with a caveat that the agency specifically look at how to clarify the drugs’ labels to highlight concerns about their impact on children, namely the risks of weight gain and diabetes.

“There is serious concern that children may be at a higher risk for serious adverse effects and we just don’t have sufficient data to answer that question,” said Dr. Jonathan Mink, a child neurology expert from the University of Rochester Medical Center.

Dr. Jeffrey Wagener, a pediatric pulmonologist from the University of Colorado Medical School, was the one adviser to vote “no” out of concern that wouldn’t get regulators closer to dealing with the risks of using antipsychotics in children.

“I don’t see how the FDA is responding to the December 8, 2009 request by this committee in a thorough fashion,” he said. “It’s taken them two years to not respond to that that we need to be more than in the observational role.”

The FDA in the next month to six weeks will release a revised label for Abilify, a drug sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co and Otsuka Pharmaceutical and approved to treat schizophrenia in adolescents, bipolar disorder in children 10 to 17 years old and irritability associated with autism in those as young as six.

“We ask that with this upcoming revision that you carefully consider the language around pediatric use and adverse events,” said Dr. Geoffrey Rosenthal, the committee’s chair and director of Pediatric and Congenital Heart Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center.

Abilify’s new label will detail the drug’s latest clinical trials, warn of metabolic concerns and remind doctors to monitor weight and symptoms of diabetes in all patients, said Dr. Thomas Laughren, FDA’s psychiatry products chief. The pediatric section of the label would contain a reference to those warnings, he said..

Such revisions, which are already incorporated into Johnson & Johnson’s antipsychotic medication Invega Sustenna, are being considered for other similar drugs on a case by case basis, Laughren said.

The new generation of antipsychotic medications has raised a wave of concerns as they are increasingly being prescribed for a host of uses and for younger and younger patients, with little conclusive research addressing their impact on children and sometimes with little evidence they work.

Newer antipsychotics include J&J’s Risperdal, known generically as risperidone; Eli Lilly & Co’s Zyprexa or olanzapine; AstraZeneca’s Seroquel or quetiapine; and Abilify, known generically as aripiprazole.

U.S. researchers have found that the drugs’ use in children increased by 65 percent from 2002 to 2009, primarily through prescriptions for teenagers.

From fall 2009 to spring of this year, 1.9 million prescriptions of Abilify alone were dispensed to patients under 18, including even 875 prescriptions for toddlers younger than 2, according to FDA research.

Most commonly, the prescriptions were for bipolar disorder in teenagers and preschoolers, and for affective psychoses in children between the ages of seven and 12.

Advisers also voted unanimously to require the FDA to show them label revisions and report back in the next year or 18 months on progress in designing more studies of the drugs in children.

http://www.fox43.com/lifestyle/sns-rt-us-usa-fda-antipsychotictre78l77l-20110922,0,216106.story

« Return to news items


Share

Mental health services have become increasingly dominated by psychiatry’s ”medical model”

Friday, September 16th, 2011

The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia – “With More Talk in Mind” – Sep 15, 2011

by Dr. John Reed, Professor of Clinical Psychology

SERIOUS problems in Victoria’s mental health system have been revealed recently in The Age. The important thing now is to find solutions. In doing so we should remember that although Victoria is in the spotlight, similar ”crises” occur regularly all over the world. Perhaps this is because Victoria is not alone in having a system based on fundamentally flawed principles.

Mental health services have become increasingly dominated by psychiatry’s ”medical model”, which claims that feeling depressed, anxious or paranoid is primarily caused by genetic predispositions and chemical imbalances.

This has led to alarming rises in chemical solutions to distress. In New Zealand, one in nine adults (and one in five women) is prescribed antidepressants every year.

The public, however, in every country studied, including Australia, believes that mental health problems are caused by issues such as stress, poverty and isolation. The public also prefers talking therapies to drugs and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT).

Research suggests the public is right. For example, the single best predictor of just about every mental health problem is poverty, followed by other social factors such as abuse, neglect and early loss of parents in childhood, and – once in adulthood – loneliness and a range of adverse events including losses and defeats of various kinds.

Meanwhile, reviews of studies on anti-depressants (which only recently have been able to include those previously kept secret by drug companies) conclude that they are superior to placebos only for those at the extreme end of the ”most severe” group of depressed people. This represents less than 10 per cent of the people who are receiving these drugs.

A recent Cochrane review (the type most highly regarded in the scientific community) for risperidone, a leading anti-psychotic drug, ”suggests that there is no clear difference between risperidone and [a] placebo”.

A placebo (from the Latin meaning ”I please”) is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed the talking therapies are effective partly because, if done well, they too instil hope and expectations of recovery.

The problem is that psychiatric drugs often have serious adverse effects. Anti-psychotics, for instance, can cause rapid weight gain, loss of sexual function, diabetes, heart disease, neurodegeneration and reduced life span.

As previously reported, my review of ECT studies (with Professor Richard Bentall of Liverpool University) found that this treatment is ineffective for most recipients and frequently causes permanent memory loss. This in itself can be depressing.

ECT also has a slight but significant risk of death, most frequently from cardiovascular failure.

Inpatient units are equally ineffective and can also be damaging. When will we learn that putting large numbers of extremely distressed people in the same building is not a good idea?

What I conclude from all this is that any review of mental health services in Victoria, or anywhere else for that matter, should probably be led by anyone other than a psychiatrist – and certainly not in Victoria’s case the state’s Chief Psychiatrist, whose job, according to Dr Ruth Vine herself, is “to watch over how the system is functioning”.

It is unfair to expect Dr Vine to take an objective view on the failure of the system for which she is responsible. That lack of objectivity is amply demonstrated by her claims that ECT is “safe and effective” and that the problem is the public’s “negative” views.

Perhaps a lawyer from the Mental Health Legal Centre might be a good choice.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/with-more-talk-in-mind-20110914-1k9m2.html#ixzz1Y8tVJQlv

 

« Return to news items


Share

Scandalous Off Label Use Of Antipsychotics: Another Warning For DSM-5

Monday, August 8th, 2011

Psychiatric Times

By Allen Frances, MD | August 5, 2011

I never would have entered the DSM-5 controversy were it not for two of its proposals that risk furthering the already frightening overuse of antipsychotic medication, particularly in children and teenagers. DSM-5 plans to introduce two new and untested diagnoses that would offer natural targets for poor drug prescribing–psychosis risk syndrome (AKA attenuated psychotic symptoms) and temper dysregulation (AKA disruptive mood dysregulation). There is no evidence whatever that antipsychotics would confer any benefit on the kids so labeled (and too often mislabeled), but great reason to worry that this would not stop their being used needlessly and recklessly.

The DSM-5 supporters of these two proposals believe my concern is ill founded, or at least excessive. They argue that they would not recommend antipsychotics for the new diagnoses and that there is no FDA approved indication for their use. This misses the crucial point that new DSM categories, once made official, take on an independent life. If they can possibly be misused (and clearly these can), they will be misused. And experience teaches the clear lesson that antipsychotic overuse will insinuate itself insidiously and inappropriately whenever any crack of opportunity opens up.

A recent paper by Mojtabai and Olfson1 presents a chilling testimony to the spreading creep of antipsychotic misuse. In 1996, antipsychotics were prescribed for patients with an anxiety disorder in 10% of office visits. One decade later, this had more than doubled despite there being no evidence that antipsychotics work for anxiety disorders and clear evidence that they cause dangerous side effects. Because antipsychotics have no FDA indication for anxiety disorders, all this massive overprescription was done completely off-label.

This is truly alarming, but unfortunately it is not really surprising. Antipsychotics have managed to become the top class of drugs– generating the highest revenue with sales of $15 billion per year– despite the troubling facts that much of the prescribing is off label, unsupported by scientific evidence, and likely to cause the dreadful side effect of obesity with all its consequent risks. This is an astounding reflection on the lack of caution in everyday medical practice. Used appropriately, antipsychotics are extremely valuable and necessary tools– but what could possibly justify their becoming such promiscuous best sellers?

DSM-5 cannot off-load responsibility for causing harmful unintended consequences– especially when these are so obvious that they smack you in face. It is foolhardy to risk causing a further wave in the antipsychotic deluge. I continue to despair of a process that allows such smart and well meaning people to make such really dreadful decisions.

 https://member.cmpmedica.com/index.php?referrer=http://member.cmpmedica.com/cga.php?assetID=422&referrer=http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blog/couchincrisis/content/article/10168/1921927

« Return to news items


Share