
By now, everyone who has been paying attention should know  that a journal article which lists "editorial support" is an article  that was ghostwritten.  Yet the average reader of these articles is  apparently uninformed enough to not care.  Why else would so many  articles get published which feature "editorial support provided by  [insert name of ghostwriter here]." One my my favorite journals, under  the "so bad, it's good" category, is the Primary Care Companion to the  Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.  Good articles certainly make their way  into the journal, perhaps by accident, but the journal can always be  counted on to provide a steady supply of utter garbage.
Here's  the acknowledgements section from 
one recent piece in the journal: "Editorial  support was provided by George Rogan, MSc, Phase Five Communications  Inc, New York, New York. Mr. Rogan reports no other financial  affiliations relevant to the subject of this article."  And in case  you're wondering, "Funding for editorial support was provided by  Bristol-Myers Squibb." If you've somehow guessed that this is an  advertorial for Abilify, you win. Other ghostwritten pieces of fluff  paid for by BMS include 
an article discussing the safety  profile of Abilify in depression.  It states that "In conclusion, this  post hoc analysis extends previous findings demonstrating that  aripiprazole is safe and generally well tolerated as an augmentation  strategy to standard ADT in patients with MDD with a history of an  inadequate response to antidepressant medication."  But Abilify caused  akathisia in a quarter of patients - I think 
that's a problem.
But  wait... there's more.  
An article based on data from two  trials, which showed (allegedly) that Seroquel improves anxiety in  patients with bipolar disorder.  This piece also acknowledges that it  was ghostwritten.  And we know that AstraZeneca, manufacturer of  Seroquel, has 
cooked the books on Seroquel in  the past.  Feel free to look through the journal every month and have a  giggle at some of the ridiculous pieces that make their way into print.  
CME
You can get your continuing medical education  (CME) from the Primary Care Companion as well.  One particularly  awesome piece of 
medical wisdom pimped  Abilify educated physicians about the best ways to manage  resistant depression.  This one is a beauty.  It was supported by cash  from BMS, which features prominently in the "treat aggressively" message  of the piece.  The article features none other than Michael Thase as  the leading discussant.  The same guy who was the leading author on a  paper which allegedly showed the wonders of Abilify for depression -  despite the pesky fact that patients said 
it didn't work. 
Back to  the CME.. Thase starts off by stating that only a third of patients  achieve remission of depressive symptoms during treatment.  Given that  Abilify is being marketed for treatment-resistant depression, this is a  perfect way to start off this 
infomercial educational  piece.  He adds that failure to achieve remission increases the risk of  suicide and puts people at risk for more depression, worse psychiatric  outcomes, and all sorts of other bad things.  So we better get rid of 
all  symptoms of depression. Thase suggests that clinicians should  closely monitor patients to see if their symptoms are remitting. 
In  particular, "Relying on the global statement “I’m definitely better”  from the patient overlooks persistent, minor, or residual symptoms. Dr  Thase recommended using a standardized symptom assessment measure and  keeping track of the patient’s levels of symptom burden." So even if the  patient says he or she is much better, don't believe it.  Have the  patient fill out rating scales and if 
any symptoms at any level  are present, keep treating.  In Thase's words, "If the current treatment  is well tolerated and the individual has made significant symptom  improvement but is still experiencing residual symptoms, then it may be  necessary to adjust the treatment dose, add another medication, or  combine pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy."  Note that adding  psychotherapy comes 
after adding another medication.
Then  a series of other objective, expert psychiatrists chime in.  Dr. Gaynes  offers his wisdom, which includes "Dr Gaynes concluded that incomplete  remission requires 
aggressive  identification and management."  Don't be afraid - be aggressive.  The  unspoken message: Hey, using an antipsychotic like Abilify for  depression may seem freakin' crazy.  But don't worry, you need to be 
aggressive.   Dr. Trivedi then comments about using rating scales to measure side  effects.  I don't have much to say about his section, but things get  worse momentarily...
Dr. Papakostas then checks in.  "A  meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies  found that augmentation of various antidepressants with the atypical  antipsychotic agents olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine was more  efficacious than adjunctive placebo therapy. In addition, Dr Papakostas  noted that the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole was recently approved  by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use as an adjunctive  therapy to antidepressants in MDD. 
Augmenting with  atypical antipsychotics has so far been the best studied strategy for  managing treatment-resistant depression, said Dr Papakostas."   Dr. P was the coauthor of a meta-analysis that provided "considerable  evidence" regarding the wonders of antipsychotic therapy for  depression.  The only problem was that the analysis actually did not  find convincing evidence that the drugs were particularly effective,  which I discussed in 
December 2009.
Next comes  Dr. Shelton.  Time to be aggressive, again: "Thus, said Dr Shelton, the  long-term management of depression should be viewed in the context of  acute treatment and the need for 
early aggressive  management to get the patient as well as possible."  Be  aggressive by adding Abilify to the antidepressant regimen.  If not,  your patient won't achieve full remission and will suffer needlessly...  "Dr Shelton advised clinicians to 
be aggressive  in treatment and stay active over time, asking themselves if everything  has
honestly been done to help the patient."  Psychotherapy is given  a brief mention in this section, but let's face it -- most physicians  think of "be aggressive" as upping the dosage and/or adding medications -  not as "let's be aggressive by adding psychotherapy."
Then  there's the exam at the end.  Write up your answers, mail them in, and  get your medical education credit.  Here's one of the questions...
3.  Scores on both patient- and clinician-rated scales found that Ms B is  still experiencing residual depressive symptoms. You optimize her  current SSRI dose, which produces some improvement. She has not reported  any problems with side effects. What course of action to improve her  outcome has the most comprehensive efficacy data?
a. Increase the  dose of her current SSRI again
b. Augment her current SSRI with  another SSRI
c. Switch her to a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake  inhibitor
d. Augment her current SSRI with an atypical antipsychotic
If  you guessed that D is the correct answer, you're one step closer to CME  credit.  And one step closer to writing a prescription for Abilify  despite the fact that it is as likely to 
induce akathisia as to induce  remission of depressive symptoms.  Or that its advantage over placebo is  small on several measures and 
nonexistent on a patient-rated  measure of depression.  But D is still the "correct" answer.

The offending  educational piece is cited below:
Thase,  M., Gaynes, B., Papakostas, G., Shelton, R., & Trivedi, M. (2009).  Tackling Partial Response to Depression Treatment The Primary Care Companion to The Journal  of Clinical Psychiatry, 11 (4), 155-162 DOI: 10.4088/PCC.8133ah3c