Ever wonder what makes doctors choose one antidepressant drug over another when they all appear to be about the same? Why, for example, would a doctor prescribe Paxil over Zoloft or Prozac or Celexa? All are in the same family of drugs called "second-generation antidepressants," and they work in a similar way. The FDA is no help because the agency requires only that each drug company prove its drug is better than nothing (a placebo). Unfortunately for the public, the FDA does not require the drug companies to prove their drugs are better than the competing drugs.
If any head-to-head comparison trials are done, they are conducted and published years after the drugs have been on the market. In the meantime, the drug companies have plenty of time and money to convince doctors and the public that their products are superior to the competition. Nine drugs make up the second generation antidepressants. In addition to four mentioned above, other brand names are Lexapro, Luvox, Serzone, Desyrel, and Effexor.
To determine whether any of these antidepressant drugs stand out from the rest for the treatment of major depression, a review of all relevant trials was conducted by Richard A. Hansen, PhD, and colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The reviewers found 46 head-to-head comparison trials. They also assessed 24 other types of studies, as well as trials in which an antidepressant was compared with a placebo.
When their findings were published recently in Annals of Internal Medicine, Hansen and colleagues showed there are only minimal differences in efficacy between the second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of major depression. In fact, 88% of the comparative trials found no difference between these antidepressants by any outcome measure. There were, however, differences in adverse effects. Also, the trials varied in quality and the length of time spent following the participants.
Since there are minimal differences in efficacy, the decision as to which drug to take should be based on the one with the fewest adverse effects. But the reviewers acknowledged difficulties in making such a determination because only 13% of the trials reported the adverse reactions properly.
96% of all the antidepressant drug studies in this review were sponsored by or had at least one author affiliated with a pharmaceutical company, according to Hansen and colleagues. The review, however, was funded by several government grants.
Suggestions From Worst Pills, Best Pills:
The popular drug-reference book entitled, Worst Pills, Best Pills, advises people to check the side effects of their current medications before going on antidepressant drug therapy. The authors of this book, subtitled, "A Consumer's Guide to Avoiding Drug-Induced Death or Illness," note that depression can be a side effect of numerous prescription medications, including some antihypertension drugs, antibiotics, acne drugs, corticosteroids, and diet drugs.
In 2004, the FDA issued a public health advisory warning that risk of suicidal thoughts and actions are increased in adults and children with the use of Celexa, Prozac, Serzone, Paxil, Zoloft, and Lexapro. Best Pills, Worst Pills advises readers not to use Lexapro because there is no significant difference between this drug and Celexa, and the latter drug is about to be available in a less expensive generic version, citalopram.
Also, there is inadequate information regarding the use of these second-generation drugs in people over the age of 60 years. Because they are underrepresented in the FDA-required clinical trials, older people's risk of adverse effects is unclear and may not be as low as it appears to be for younger adults.
To reduce the adverse effects of any antidepressant, Worst Pills, Best Pills advises people to start with a dose of one-third to one-half the usual adult dose (15-25 milligrams a day at bedtime) and increase the dose slowly, knowing that it may take three weeks for the drug to take effect.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Center for Medical Consumers, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group
Healthfacts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Just how do the sales team work at GlaxoSmithKline?
If something sells and makes you a lot of money do you just sit on it or do you think of ways to further increase sales. A classic example would be Premiership football. When a team win the title they don't sit and gloat, they go out and strengthen the team, they then 'up' the admission fee to the watching public. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it don't.
In 1998 GlaxoSmithKline issued a marketing strategy paper called 'Toward the Second Billion'. It suggested that people with common phobias could be persuaded to take Seroxat.
It raised concerns with Mental Health campaigners about how Pharmaceutical Companies market drugs and influence medical research.
In a clever multi-million pound spin phobias were renamed 'social anxiety disorders' thus enabling Seroxat to be prescribed for a whole host of symptoms. Basically, anyone that was low on self-esteem (confidence) were targeted. Symptoms such as:
Fear that everyone's attention is focused on them
Fear that they will make mistakes and everyone will notice
Feeling that everyone else is more capable in the same situation
Fear that they are being judged by others
Fear that they will embarrass or humiliate themselves in front of others
Fears that have been around since man learned to communicate and now, it seemed, ones that could be brushed aside by swallowing GSK's wonder drug, Seroxat.
Do we blame the GP's for handing out these drugs like sweets, do we blame the MHRA for allowing this manipulative marketing to be processed or do we blame GlaxoSmithKline for inventing disease purely to keep Seroxat on top of the Premiership?
The signs were abundantly clear from very early on that GlaxoSmithKline's money making drug, Seroxat, was being forced upon doctor's - in turn being forced upon the patient who was feeling down. The MHRA did what they did best - they just sat back and rubbed thier hands at the funding they would recieve from the likes of GlaxoSmithKline, hardly surprising with two ex-employees of GlaxoSmithKline now sitting on the agency at MHRA HQ, also hardly surprising that GlaxoSmithKline's spin doctor, Alistair Benbow, should robustly deny any problems with Seroxat when interviewed by the media. Alistair Breckenridge, of the MHRA, would also go on record promoting the use of Seroxat.
Attempts made by MP's to voice their concerns have been quoshed by GlaxoSmithKline with threatening letters - Paul Flynn, MP for Newport, tabled the following Early Day Motion earlier this year:
EDM 767
CONDUCT OF GLAXOSMITHKLINE
30.01.2007
Flynn, Paul
That this House questions the propriety and courtesy of the action of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in writing to hon. Members with constituency interests in GSK urging them to oppose Motions for Early Day (EDMs) critical of their conduct, then denying originators of the EDMs details of the content of their messages when requested.
GlaxoSmithKline can threaten MP's but they cannot threaten the common man who has nothing to lose, one that has lost pretty much everything already because of the drug they manufactured and continue to tout as a safe drug.
Collectively, blogs such as Bob Fiddaman's 'SEROXAT SUFFERERS' and the anonymous 'SEROXAT SECRETS' can make a change and their authors can sleep soundly at night in the knowledge that GlaxoSmithKline will one day NOT be able to throw money at lawsuits. They will eventually come across individuals who refuse to take the money and run. That day is fast approaching
Bob
Hello guys I need to buy some drug to my brother because he suffers depression, he suffer ED and it is awful for him I want to Buy Viagra this medicament can help him with ED and the depression.
Post a Comment