Violating the Promise to 'Do No Harm'
Provided by The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on 5/15/2004
by CHRIS ADAMS AND ALISON YOUNG Knight Ridder News Service
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Washington -- When federal officials lowered the hammer on a major drug-maker for the off-label marketing of its blockbuster epilepsy drug Neurontin, they were driven in part by the idea that such prescriptions subject patients to unwarranted risks.
Pfizer Inc. agreed Thursday to pay $430 million in criminal and civil penalties to federal and state agencies because it marketed Neurontin for uses never approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Part of the money will go to redress "harm caused to consumers."
Neurontin is approved for treatment of epilepsy and a shingles- related condition, but is dispensed widely for dozens of other maladies. It is one on a growing list of drugs that are being given to patients in ways not approved by the FDA and as treatment for illnesses that the drugs can't cure.
While much of the discussion over off-label sales has revolved around business implications -- how much revenue the practice brings in, whether marketing efforts are legal -- this week's settlement highlighted the potential health risks as well. The primary commandment of the physician's oath, after all, is to "do no harm."
Indeed, for consumers, the off-label issue is about more than wasted money. It's often about taking ineffective drugs that carry a risk of serious side effects.
"You're taking a medicine because a company needs to market it," said physician Arnold Relman, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. "Who knows if it will work?"
Because every drug has side effects -- ranging from annoying to deadly -- an off-label prescription often means that a patient is assuming the risk of harm with no assurance of benefit, Relman said.
As it announced the Neurontin settlement, the Justice Department noted that the drug was not studied in the type of patient it is being used for.
In Boston, U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan added that Neurontin's off-label sales pitches "corrupted" the information that doctors received and put patients at risk.
A 2003 Knight Ridder investigation found that off-label prescribing was increasing rapidly, with 115 million such prescriptions written in a year, nearly double the number of five years ago.
Victims of off-label prescribing have died, suffered heart attacks and strokes, had permanent nerve damage or lost their eyesight. Most were never told that the FDA hadn't approved their treatments.
The Knight Ridder analysis found that Neurontin's off-label retail sales were higher than for any other drug studied: About 90% of prescriptions written for Neurontin, or $1.8 billion worth in a year, were for unapproved uses. Several other drugs -- anti-seizure medication Topamax, anti-psychotics Seroquel and Risperdal, arthritis medication Bextra -- sold more than half their pills for off-label uses.
Drugs are approved by the FDA after extensive studies have shown that they are safe and effective in treating specific ailments. Once they are on the market, however, doctors can prescribe them for any condition. Physicians say they need that flexibility.
But because many off-label uses have no scientific rationale, drug companies are generally prohibited from marketing them, which is where Neurontin's makers got into trouble. Several other drug- makers are also under investigation for similar marketing practices.
According to the Justice Department, Neurontin was aggressively marketed for a wide range of unapproved conditions. Sales representatives, for example, touted the drug for treating a mental condition known as bipolar disorder even when a scientific study showed that a sugar pill worked as well or better.
The case stemmed from actions by Warner-Lambert Co. employees before Pfizer bought the company in 2000.
(C) 2004 The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. via ProQuest Information and Learning Company; All Rights Reserved
Antidepressants Unsafe for Children:How Could Drug Companies be so Evil?
Provided by Optimal Wellness Center
5/15/2004
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
According to the first comprehensive scientific review to include all available studies, including negative data that have long been withheld from public scrutiny by the pharmaceutical industry, four popular antidepressants being used to treat thousands of depressed American children are unsafe, ineffective or both. Those antidepressants are:
Paxil Zoloft Effexor Celexa This is damning evidence of the drug companies' patent disregard for the safety of humans and focus on profits. GlaxoSmithKline was found to be concealing evidence that shows that these drugs do not benefit children in any way and only increase their risk of killing themselves. This was confirmed in an article in the Canadian Medical Journal.
Fortunately, the British medical journals are far more responsive than the American ones. The Lancets editorial states:
Research on SSRIs in children is marked by confusion, manipulation, and institutional failure. In a global medical culture where evidence-based practice is seen as the gold standard for care, these failings are a disaster. How confident is society that similar failings will not occur on a larger scale in the future? Changes are required at every level of the global health-care infrastructure Despite these findings, the FDA continues to support these worthless antidepressants by claiming the failed trials dont necessarily mean the drugs are ineffective. Data has also confirmed that taking SSRIs werent any better for you than taking a placebo. Folks, if this doesn't make you fighting mad, what will?
Just sit down and think about it for a moment. Drug companies do the research and learn that the drugs don't work, yet are willing to sell and market them to children even when it is clear that they are causing many children to commit suicide.
Unpublished studies of venlafaxine suggested the drug increased suicide-related events such as suicidal thoughts or attempts by 14 times compared with placebo. This is reprehensible and despicable behavior equivalent to any third-world dictator.
How can anyone possibly support this approach?
If this makes you one-tenth as angry as it does me, I encourage you to do something practical about it.
Rather than risking the potentially deadly side effects of these drugs, I recommend the following three steps. The great majority of patients at my clinic noticed an amazing improvement in their depression when following them:
Omega-3 oils, specifically fish oil, is probably the single most important nutrient for a child with depression to take.
Next they should only drink water as their beverage, taking care to avoid fruit juices, soda and milk.
Restrict sugars and grains, which cause insulin levels to be elevated. You can read about the techniques to follow to remove all grains and sugars from your diet in my new book, Dr. Mercolas Total Health Cookbook & Program.
Popping pills is rarely the answer to helping children suffering from depression; it is only a temporary Band-Aid. In order to truly help these children, we need to focus on finding the underlying cause of the problem, then search for ways to treat it.
© 2004 Optimal Wellness Center. All Rights Reserved.
New Research Shows Stark Differences in Teen Brains
Provided by Scripps Howard News Service on 5/11/2004
by By LEE BOWMAN
Recent popular films depicting teenagers suddenly housed in adult bodies have more than a little truth in them.
The latest brain research has found strong evidence that when it comes to maturity, organization and control, key parts of the brain related to emotions, judgment and "thinking ahead" are the last to arrive.
"It seems that regulation of impulse control is the last on board and often the first to leave in the brain as we age," said Dr. Ruben Gur, a professor of psychology and director of the Brain Behavior Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania who has been researching brain development in young adults.
Until recently, most brain experts thought the human command center stopped growing at around 18 months, and that neurons were pretty much set for life by age 3.
In fact, the brain's gray matter has a final growth spurt around the ages of 11 to 13 in the frontal lobes of the brain, the regions that guide human intellect and planning.
But it seems to take most of the teen years for youngsters to link these new cells to the rest of their brains and solidify the millions of connections that allow them to think and behave like adults.
At the same time, the release of a cascade of adolescent hormones during and after puberty causes other areas of the brain, particularly the amygdala, which governs basic emotional response, to fire up or expand.
The result is that teens look at things differently than adults. This has tremendous implications for education, mental health, drug abuse and moral and legal responsibility of adolescents.
Deborah Yurgelun-Todd of Harvard Medical School and McClean Hospital in Boston has studied how teenagers and adults respond differently to the same images. Shown a set of photos of people's faces contorted in fear, adults named the right emotion, but teens seldom did, often saying the person was angry.
When Yurgelun-Todd and her team did the same test while doing functional magnetic resonance imaging of the subject's brains, they found a stark difference in the parts being used. Adults used both the advanced prefrontal cortex and the more basic amygdala to evaluate what they had seen; younger teens relied entirely on the amygdala, while older teens (top age in the group was 17) showed a progressive shift toward using the frontal area of the brain.
"Just because teens are physically mature, they may not appreciate the consequences or weigh information the same way as adults do," Yurgelun-Todd said. "Good judgment is learned, but you can't learn it if you don't have the necessary hardware."
There is more evidence of the differences:
_ A recent imaging study by researchers at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that teens taking an experimental gambling test are less likely to activate a region in the base of the brain that motivates behavior to work to obtain rewards than a control group of young adults, ages 22-28, playing the same games.
_ Numerous studies show alcohol and perhaps other drugs hit teen brains harder than they do adult brains. The frontal lobes and the hippocampus, which is involved in memory formation, are particularly vulnerable.
_ It has been known for some time that children have sharp growth spurts in brain connections among regions specialized for language and spatial relationships between ages 6 and 12. That language capacity tends to reside mostly in a person's nondominant side _ the left hemisphere of the brain in right-handers, for instance. But a recent imaging study by researchers at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center found that this distinction ends in the mid-20s when the brain shifts to use both sides in language processing.
The story of teen brain development lies in a process called myelinization, in which a layer of fat coats wire-like fibers connecting regions of the brain, back-to-front, side-to-side, and everywhere in between. Over time, this makes the operation of the brain more precise and efficient, affecting not just thinking and problem-solving, but also coordination and mastery of skills ranging from throwing a baseball to playing the trombone.
But there's a price for this greater efficiency _brain cells that aren't hooked up to other parts tend to get killed off.
"If they're not on the network, they die and their place is taken up with cerebral fluid. This goes on well beyond age 18," said Dr. David Fassler, a psychiatrist at the University of Vermont.
Even in adulthood, the wiring job is not completely done. Imaging done on the brains of people in their 40s and 50s show there's another surge of connections being made, perhaps in response to menopause or to prepare the brain to better compensate for the loss of brain cells as we age.
Still, it's a slow, arduous road to maturity and insight for teens.
"We have some new insight into the 16 year-old that doesn't think twice about getting in a car with a friend who's been drinking, but they're still not going to appreciate adults arguments for why they shouldn't," said Fassler.
At the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr. Jay Giedd, who helps run the ongoing imaging studies that first detected the middle school growth spurt, said the new understanding of teen brains "argues for doing a lot of things as a teenager. You are hard-wiring you brain in adolescence. Do you want to hard-wire it for sports and playing music and doing mathematics, or for lying on the couch in front of the television?"
The new understanding of adolescent brains leads to questions of ethics and legalities.
The Supreme Court already has decided that people should not be executed for crimes committed when they were age 15 or younger, and in the fall is scheduled to consider whether the restriction should be extended to everyone under 18.
Two years ago, the court banned execution of mentally retarded people because of deficiencies that "diminish their personal culpability."
"With the new biological explanation that adolescent brains are different, we think there's scientific evidence that they, too, are less culpable," said Stephen Harper, an adjunct professor of juvenile justice at the University of Miami School of Law who specializes in capital cases.
Gur said some scientists would put off the age of legal majority to 22 or 23, and said there will likely be considerable debate over how to tell when a person's brain physically looks like an adult's as imaging research continues and efforts to set standards and norms develop.
Fassler predicts that within a decade, brain images will be sophisticated enough to "help us determine the age for appropriate treatment of addictions and therapy models for adults and adolescents with disorders."
Other researchers say that while it's possible to gain general understanding about brain development and function from the images, the notion that medicine, law enforcement or anyone else should work from some ideal, normal brain model is troubling.
"Each individual is not an exact map, and the difficulties in determining what the range of variations are is really dangerous. The data is incredibly easy to be over-interpreted," said Sonia Miller, a New York attorney who specializes in cases dealing with new technologies.
Some courts are already accepting brain scans as evidence of a person's mental capacity in criminal cases, she said, and "as the neuroscience of intentional behavior develops, the way we assign responsibility and blame will be challenged. This raises a lot of questions about how much neural privacy can we expect, how much the authorities can get into your brain."
Dr. Peter Bandettini, a brain-imaging researcher at the National Institutes of Health, said the science of understanding what small structures and chemicals are doing within the brain is far from a gold standard for mental function or age.
"Right now, I personally think you'd get more information about a person's mental age by going to a set of behavioral tests. But I'd agree that as these technologies become more powerful, there's going to be a greater need for checks and balances to determine how the imaging information should be used."
New Ear Infection Guidelines Released
Provided by Associated Press on 5/3/2004
CHICAGO (AP) - Symptomless ear inflammation that affects more than 2 million American children a year should be handled with ``watchful waiting'' and no treatment unless it remains for at least three months, new guidelines say.
Sometimes called silent ear infections, the condition that sometimes follows a cold results in an estimated $4 billion in annual medical costs, including drugs and operations to implant ear drainage tubes.
While in some cases treatment is needed, at least 75 percent of cases clear up on their own within three months, according to the guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics. They were published Monday in the May edition of the academy's journal, Pediatrics.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates at least 6 million courses of unnecessary antibiotics are prescribed yearly for the condition, which is known medically as otitis media with effusion, or fluid in the middle ear.
Sometimes the fluid contains bacteria, but the guidelines say antibiotics are not recommended for routine treatment, although in some cases short-term use may produce benefits, especially as a last resort before tube surgery.
Antihistamine and decongestant drugs are sometimes recommended but are useless for the condition and should be avoided, the guidelines say.
Otitis with effusion or fluid can cause temporarily muffled hearing and sometimes result in a delay in learning a language. Hearing tests should be performed if the fluid condition lasts longer than three months, and language tests are recommended if there is evidence of hearing loss or learning problems, the guidelines say.
Surgery, usually implanting ear tubes, should be considered if the condition lasts four months or longer and children show signs of persistent hearing loss, according to the guidelines.
The condition is different from classic ear infections - acute otitis media - that usually cause pain and other symptoms of inflammation and infection. Classic ear infections also do not usually require antibiotics and should be treated with pain medicine, the academy says.
|