Editorial Support, CME, and the Primary Care Companion

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

Atypical Antipsychotics For Depression: Now With "Considerable Evidence"

I've been wanting to write about this for months. Here goes. We know that antipsychotics are the new panacea for all things mental health-related, including depression (1, 2, 3). But critics kept pointing to a pesky lack of evidence that such treatments actually worked. Bristol-Myers Squibb, manufacturer of Abilify, has been running a disinformation campaign in medical journals to tout its drug as an antidepressant. Their attempts to paint a positive picture of Abilify's antidepressant properties and its allegedly fantastic safety/tolerability profile have been simultaneously tragic and amusing (1, 2, 3).

We're now moving on to something bigger... It ain't just Abilify, folks. It's all the atypicals. They are all antidepressants. According to the authors of a recent meta-analysis, for atypical antipsychotics: "At present, this body of evidence is considerably larger than that for any other augmentation strategy in the treatment of major depressive disorder." In other words, if you are not prescribing atypicals for your patients who don't show adequate response to antidepressants, you are not practicing evidence-based medicine. You are a [bleeping] cowboy who is willfully disregarding science. You are denying your patients the best possible treatment. The authors don't actually say any of those things, but those are the implications. If the evidence for using antipsychotics is "considerably larger" than the evidence for anything else, then the implications are clear-cut. And this is exactly how this study will be cited. Salespeople, from drug reps to academic psychiatrists, to practitioners looking to earn a few thousand extra bucks on the side through pharma speaking gigs, will discuss this study as if it were a landmark finding.

Response and Remission: But the "evidence" is not all that convincing. Here's why... The authors pooled together the results of 16 randomized controlled trials. In these studies, patients had failed to respond adequately (using various definitions) to an antidepressant. Patients were then assigned to receive either an atypical antipsychotic or a placebo in addition to their antidepressant. Outcomes were then tabulated somewhere between 4 and 12 weeks later. The results seem clear cut -- if your brain is turned to "off" -- the response rates for atypicals was 44% compared to 30% for placebo. The remission rates were 31% for atypicals and 17% for placebo. The advantage for atypicals is statistically significant. Well, there you have it. Done deal. Ask your doctor about Abilify/Zyprexa/Seroquel today...

But the most important thing in a treatment outcome study is... the outcomes. The authors of the meta-analysis did not bother to actually measure change in scores on rating scales. Instead, they only used response and remission rates. There is absolutely no good reason for doing this. It's potentially quite misleading. Doctors like remission and response rates because they provide the illusion that we are measuring depression exactly. A "responder" got a lot better and is functioning reasonably well whereas a "non-responder" is in bed 12 hours a day while spending the rest of her time watching the E! Network, eating Bon-Bons, and sobbing constantly. But it's not nearly that scientific. A "responder" is usually defined as someone who got 50% better on his or her depression rating score during the study period. So Bob's depression rating score improved by 52% (he's a responder), but Amy's score only improved by 48%, so she's a nonresponder. Is this 4% difference really meaningful?

Let's look at the following dataset for 20 participants in a fictional study...

Improvements in depression over course of 10 week study

Drug	Placebo
40%	30%
55%	60%
50%	45%
55%	48%
52%	48%
60%	55%
60%	55%
10%	25%
20%	10%
25%	30%

Using a 50% improvement to determine if a patient is a "responder", we get a 60% response rate on drug and a 30% response rate on placebo. Lazy logic says: Oooh -- the drug is twice as effective as placebo. But is we take the average for each group, we get an average improvement of 42.7% on the drug compared to 40.6% on placebo. See the problem with response and remission rates? Similar arguments have been made by smarter people than myself.

Putting outcomes into convenient little categories makes good sense when the categories themselves make sense - events like having a heart attack, getting pregnant, or dying. If the death rate on a drug is 4% compared to 2% on a placebo, then the drug really reduced death by 50%. But if the "remission rate" or "response rate" for depression is 40% on drug compared to 20% on placebo, that does not mean the drug is twice as effective as placebo in treating depression. If you need to score a 7 or below on a depression rating scale to be "in remission", but you score an 8, are you really much worse off than the person who scored a 7?

Am I saying that the drugs really just squeaked by placebo in these studies? Well, I've read the Abilify studies and posted on them previously - in those studies, Abilify barely beat the placebo. And in the opinion of the patients themselves, Abilify didn't beat placebo at all. And the studies were designed to benefit Abilify, not to actually see if the drug worked. As I noted previously...

Patients were initially assigned to receive an antidepressant plus a placebo for eight weeks. Those who failed to respond to treatment were assigned to Abilify + antidepressant or placebo + antidepressant. Those who responded during the initial 8 weeks were then eliminated from the study. So we've already established that antidepressant + placebo didn't work for these people -- yet they were then assigned to treatment for 6 weeks with the same treatment (!) and compared to those who were assigned antidepressant + Abilify. So the antidepressant + placebo group started at a huge disadvantage because it was already established that they did not respond well to such a treatment regimen. No wonder Abilify came out on top (albeit by a modest margin).

Here's an analogy. A group of 100 students is assigned to be tutored by Tutor A regarding math. The students are all tutored for 8 weeks. The 50 students whose math skills improve are sent on their merry way. That leaves 50 students who did not improve under Tutor A's tutelage. So Tutor B comes along to tutor 25 of these students, while Tutor A sticks with 25 of them. Tutor B's students do somewhat better than Tutor A's students on a math test 6 weeks later. Is Tutor B better than tutor A? Not really a fair comparison between Tutor A and Tutor B, is it?

I've not read the other antipsychotics for depression studies. I'll even give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they were not designed in the same biased manner as the Abilify trials. It is, however, worth noting that the "benefit" of Abilify, in terms of response and remission rates compared to placebo, was about the same as for the other atypicals. Which leads me to think that the other atypicals probably show similar marginal benefits for depression.

But now, based solely on potentially quite misleading response and remission rates, an article appears in the American Journal of Psychiatry - a piece that has the potential to ramp up the prescribing of antipsychotics for depression to an even more ridiculous level. Let the good times roll.

Source of ironclad evidence that atypical antipsychotics are antidepressants (until you actually read the paper):

Nelson, J., & Papakostas, G. (2009). Atypical Antipsychotic Augmentation in Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials American Journal of Psychiatry, 166 (9), 980-991 DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09030312

Abilify for Depression: Patients Give it an Oh-For-Three

Abilify for depression: you've seen the ads. You've hopefully read this blog (1, 2) and the excellent series in the LA Times from Melissa Healy. The advantage over placebo is nothing to get particularly excited about. Especially from the patients' point of view. As I have mentioned previously, the two studies that were touted by key opinion leaders are supporting the efficacy of Abilify for depression suffered from a number of problems. Most germane to this post, the patient self-report rating scales did not indicate a significant advantage for Abilify in either study.

Well, yet another Abilify for depression study is out in CNS Spectrums and guess what... Still not a significant advantage over placebo according to patients. So in each of three large studies, Abilify has failed to beat a placebo according to patients' self-report. These three trials are the basis for the massive marketing campaign and an FDA approval. Abilify started off as an also-ran antipsychotic. But times have changed. Bristol-Myers Squibb's CEO prophetically stated in 2004 after Abilify's approval as a treatment for bipolar disorder:

This approval underscores our commitment to delivering innovative solutions that address unmet needs for a broad spectrum of patients with mental illness, as well as their families and health care providers.

He could as easily have stated: "This approval underscores our commitment to rebranding our unpopular antipsychotic as a Swiss Army Knife/broad spectrum psychotropic that treats everything under the sun. If I can get the FDA and the public to believe that this akathisia-inducing bottom feeder can treat depression, then I'll be LOADED, BWAAH, HA HA HA HA!!!"

OK, maybe he didn't actually say any of those things, but his "broad spectrum" comment was literally right on the money. Just don't ask those pesky patients what they think; they might tell you it's no better than a damn sugar pill.

Yes, I'm aware that on some other rating scales, Abilify was rated as superior to a placebo, but I'm thinking that if the patient self-report of depression is consistently not favorable for Abilify, then who are we kidding by calling it an antidepressant?



Robert M. Berman, Maurizio Fava, Michael E. Thase, Madhukar H. Trivedi, René Swanink, Robert D. McQuade, William H. Carson, David Adson, Leslie Taylor, James Hazel, & Ronald N. Marcus (2009). Aripiprazole Augmentation in Major Depressive Disorder: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study in Patients with Inadequate Response to Antidepressants CNS Spectrums, 14 (4), 197-206

Phase V, Abilify, and Vanishing Akathisia

If you've been reading about Abilify for depression on this site, you've probably noticed that I've been down on Abilify for causing akathisia in a frighteningly high percentage of patients. In two recent trials, akathisia occurred in 25% of Abilify patients compared to 4% of placebo patients. What, exactly, is akathisia? That's still a matter of some debate. Let's turn to a recent Journal of Clinical Psychiatry article on the topic. Entitled "Akathisia: An Updated Review Focusing on Second-Generation Antipsychotics," the paper purports to provide "a review of the literature on the incidence of drug-induced akathisia associated with the use of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs)."

It provides a few different characteristics associated with acute akathisia, including:

• "Intense dysphoria
• Awareness of restlessness
• Complex and semipurposeful motor fidgetiness"

It mentions "...suicidal behavior has been described in patients with akathisia in case reports, both in patients receiving antipsychotic medication and in patients receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)."A couple of descriptions from another journal:

• Increased tenseness, restlessness, insomnia and a feeling of being very uncomfortable
• On the first day of treatment he reacted with marked anxiety and weepiness, on the second day felt so terrible with such marked panic at night that the medication was cancelled

So we can all agree that akathisia does not sound like fun.

Now back to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry review article. What did the authors conclude? "The comparative incidence of akathisia among the newer antipsychotic agents remains poorly characterized." And "...SGAs are generally associated with a lower propensity for movement disorders compared with their FGA counterparts, an emerging body of comparative literature shows that second-generation medications are not completely free from inducing akathisia."

The authors go through a long list of second-generation antipsychotic medications. The drug that receives the least attention is aripiprazole (Abilify). The authors conclude that "in studies comparing aripiprazole with placebo, akathisia rates in the aripiprazole arm were similar in some studies, and higher in others. As with other SGAs, akathisia rates with aripiprazole were lower than those of FGAs." So Abilify causes less akathisia than older medications and it's unclear if it causes more akathisia than placebo. But, wait, wasn't akathisia related to much higher rates of akathisia than placebo in treating depression? Fortunately, the authors had a little trick to erase that inconvenient piece of evidence; they only examined trials trials involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. So the depression studies -- POOF -- vanished, along with their damning data.

Why would the authors want to censor negative data about Abilify? Well, one author is an employee of Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., and another is an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb, companies that market Abilify. And the other authors: All but one of them have a financial relationship with Bristol-Myers Squibb. The best part:

Editorial support provided by Maria Soushko, Ph.D., Phase Five Communications, Inc., New York, N.Y., with funding provided by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

So a paper that excludes the most inconvenient evidence regarding akathisia on Abilify had major parts of the writing done by... a medical writer hired by Bristol-Myers Squibb. If one goes to Phase Five's website , the first animation that pops up says "Spinning Your Science Into Gold." I'd say that this article was indeed 24 karat gold. I hereby nominate all authors of the study for a much coveted Golden Goblet Award.




Citation Below:

Kane, J., Fleischhacker, W., Hansen, L., Perlis, R., Pikalov, A., & Assunção-Talbott, S. (2009). Akathisia: An Updated Review Focusing on Second-Generation Antipsychotics The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry DOI: 10.4088/JCP.08r04210

Update: See a related post at the Carlat Psychiatry Blog. A partial quote:

Publishing an article that was carefully crafted to draw attention away from Abilify's main liability was shameful, and is exactly the kind of deceptive editorial practice that we as a society can no longer tolerate.

Abilify Runs Amok, Runs Stealth Safety Campaign in Medical Journal

Furious Seasons has a rather distressing piece of news from a recent Bristol-Myers Squibb conference call. To sum it up quickly, BMS claims that 10.6% of depressed patients are now receiving atypical antipsychotics. Of those 10.6%, 21.7% are taking Abilify. So that would mean roughly 10-11 in 100 depressed patients are taking antipsychotics and 2 of them are on Abilify. I shudder to think how many are on Seroquel. Or Zyprexa. It made me think of a post I wrote a few weeks ago in which I described the marketing of Abilify for depression. A huge market of depressed people just ripe for the picking.

Going along with this, BMS is pushing back on the issue of akathisa, the side effect that has garnered the drug much bad publicity (at least in the blog world; 1, 2, 3) via a medical journal article that distracts attention from Abilify as an akathisia-inducer. More on that to come soon. Ghostwriters, ignoring contradictory evidence; basically, an attempt to completely obscure the evidence on the topic. It's not the first time BMS has successfully placed a study with major flaws into a medical journal (1, 2). Details will be forthcoming.

Abilify Marketing Blitz: Atypical Antipsychotics Gone Wild

"The results are extremely unimpressive; they just squeak by," says Massachusetts psychiatrist Daniel Carlat, editor of the respected Carlat Psychiatry Report. For a clinician or a patient's family, the difference between those on Abilify and those who took a placebo "would be hard to actually see," he adds.

Dr. Carlat is referring to the comparison between Abilify and placebo in the treatment of depression, a topic I have discussed in depth previously (1 , 2 , 3, 4). The above quote comes from a Melissa Healy piece in the Los Angeles Times that throws a damper on Abilify's parade through depression.

Another Melissa Healy piece from the LA Times starts off as follows:

About a year ago, patients began trooping into the office of UCLA psychiatrist Andrew Leuchter, asking whether an antipsychotic drug called Abilify "might be right for them." Few appeared to be delusional, plagued by hallucinations or suffering fearsome mood swings. Mostly, they were depressed or anxious, and frustrated by the pace of their recovery.

Leuchter wondered what was up: Depressed patients didn't usually seek out drugs used to quell psychiatry's most disturbing symptoms.

What was up, he soon discovered, was spending on a new advertising campaign touting Abilify as an "add-on" treatment for depression. For the first time since the arrival of a new generation of antipsychotic medications -- six drugs called the "atypicals" because they work differently from the earlier generation of antipsychotic drugs -- the makers of one, Abilify, had been granted the legal right to market to a vast new population of patients beyond those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

Here's Bristol-Myers Squibb's advertisement for the drug:



This is classic. BMS notes that two-thirds of depressed patients who take antidepressants will still have symptoms after a course of antidepressants. And they have a point: Antidepressants ain't exactly miracle pills. So the commercial implies that Abilify must be really helpful... But if patients add Abilify to their treatment regimen, then only about 25% of them experience remission of depressive symptoms. Isn't it a bit strange that Abilify is appealing to the two-thirds of patients who still have depressive symptoms after taking an antidepressant and offering them a treatment that will lead to remission for only one-quarter of them? Of course, no studies have compared adding Abilify to adding another antidepressant, adding psychotherapy, adding an exercise routine, or adding anything except a placebo. Oh, and given that Abilify led to remission of symptoms in about 25% of patients, while placebo led to remission in about 15% of patients, um, that's a pretty small difference. And keep in mind that the studies were designed in a manner that was almost sure to find a benefit for Abilify, as I have noted previously.

If Abilify was generally benign, then a relatively small benefit over placebo is acceptable. But, as I mentioned previously, the side effects are troubling. I took issue with a BMS-funded journal article/puff piece that tried to spin side effect data on Abilify:

The authors note that "adjunctive aripiprazole is relatively well-tolerated in patients with MDD." Relatively? Relative to what -- being hit with a baseball bat repeatedly? They note that akathisia occurred in 25% of patients on Abilify compared to 4% of patients on placebo. Restlessness: 12% vs. 2%; insomnia: 8% vs. 3%; fatigue: 8% vs. 4%; blurred vision: 6% vs 1%. The authors report that akathisia resolved in 52% of patients by the end of the study, which would also mean that for 48% of patients with akathisia, they were stuck with it at the end of the study. But don't worry, it's "relatively well-tolerated."

You gotta like any drug that induces akathisia at the same rate that it induces symptom remission. Psychiatrist Doug Bremner had a similar take on Abilify as showing a poor cost-benefit ratio. For a few descriptions of akathisia, see comments at this post on Furious Seasons.

Given the unimpressive scientific data regarding Abilify for depression on one hand and the drug's exploding sales on the other, I was sure glad to see a big paper such as the LA Times note that there really is a controversy here. And if Seroquel receives official FDA approval as an add-on treatment for depression, get ready for the marketing machine to reach a fever pitch. Viva Zyprexa, anyone? Melissa Healy covers the expansion of atypical antipsychotics from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder into depression in an article that y'all simply must read. I'll close with a sad-but-true quote from Yale psychiatry professor Robert Rosenheck:

The story's pretty clear, and pretty embarrassing for the profession of psychiatry, which has allowed itself to be led by marketing," says Robert Rosenheck, a psychiatrist at Yale University who has studied the effectiveness and expanded use of the atypical antipsychotics. "We know now what these companies' strategies are: The number of people with schizophrenia is limited, so the road to profitability goes through soccer moms. They need to market these drugs to ordinary people who have dissatisfactions in life.

Abilify, Depression, and the Memory Hole

The Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry has a piece on Abilify for depression that illustrates many of psychiatry's woes. Full text of the article is here. The journal published an article titled "Examining the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole in major depressive disorder: A pooled analysis of two studies." The paper combines data from two previously published studies which examined the addition of Abilify to existing antidepressant treatment (1, 2). One of psychiatry's big-name academics, Michael Thase, signed on as lead author. I'm hoping that he didn't actually write the paper. Actually, there are eleven authors of the paper, which seems a little ridiculous given that the paper is an analysis of data which had already been collected for two previously published clinical trials. Seven of the authors are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) or Otsuka, which both market Abilify. Wait... If you look closely, you can see my favorite disclosure... In the fine print on the first page...

In case you can't read the fine print: In defense of Thase and the other academic authors, they may have not actually written any of the paper. Much or all of the writing appears to be creditable to Ogilvy Healthworld Medical Education. On their site, they note that they perform:

Clinical Development and Publications Management
Experienced medical writers work closely with authors, editors and publishers to provide our clients with a full range of publishing options.

Whatever BMS/Otsuka paid you for this one simply was not enough. Why? Because whomever wrote this thing did an admirable job of focusing on the positive and completely ignoring the negative.

Erasing the Patient's Opinions: Remember, the article's title states that it examines the efficacy of adjunctive Abilify (adding Abilify to existing antidepressant treatment). So you'd think the article would mention all of the relevant depression data from the two relevant studies. Well, no. In the two stuides which are discussed in the article, patients were assessed on depression using the following measures:

• Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)
• Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self Report Scale (IDS)
• Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms Self-Report Scale (QIDS)

Using the MADRS, the authors conclude that adding Abilify to antidepressant treatment is more effective than adding placebo to antidepressant treatment. OK, fine, though it's not by a particularly huge margin. Mysteriously, the authors do not even mention that the self-report scales (IDS and its subscale, the QIDS) were used in the two trials. And why would they? In both trials, Abilify was not significantly better than placebo on these measures. A letter to the editor pointed out this glaring weakness in Abilify's claims of efficacy, the response to which was weak:

Noting that Abilify did not outperform placebo on the self-report measure in the trial, he wrote that "this may be due to the lower sensitivity" of the measure. So the drug wasn't the failure -- blame the rating scale instead. The people at BMS picked the scale and when it doesn't give results they like, then suddenly it's a poor measurement of depression. I bet Dr. Berman would not have complained about the instrument had it yielded results in favor of Abilify.

In the publications of each of the two clinical trials, the authors tried to downplay the fact that Abilify was no better than placebo according to patient self-reports. Then, when publishing an analysis that combined the results of the two trials, the authors go a step further by not even mentioning that patients completed a self-report. Right down the memory hole. In my opinion, any reasonable academic author writing about such research would want to note the strengths and limitations of Abilify in treating depression. The lack of benefit on patient-rated measures is a major weakness. Yet several big-time academics signed off on this paper despite its complete scrubbing of negative data. For that, I hereby nominate each author for a coveted Golden Goblet Award. And I credit the ghostwriter at Ogilvy with a fantastic job of serving his/her corporate clients. You, sir or ma'am, deserve kudos for a marketing job well-done.

The instructions for authors who submit to the Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry state: "Conclusions should flow logically from the data presented, and methodological flaws and limitations should be acknowledged." Um, does completely scrubbing negative data count as failing to acknowledge limitations? I can see that the peer reviewers and/or editor really paid close attention to this paper.

Safety: The authors note that "adjunctive aripiprazole is relatively well-tolerated in patients with MDD." Relatively? Relative to what -- being hit with a baseball bat repeatedly? They note that akathisia occurred in 25% of patients on Abilify compared to 4% of patients on placebo. Restlessness: 12% vs. 2%; insomnia: 8% vs. 3%; fatigue: 8% vs. 4%; blurred vision: 6% vs 1%. The authors report that akathisia resolved in 52% of patients by the end of the study, which would also mean that for 48% of patients with akathisia, they were stuck with it at the end of the study. But don't worry, it's "relatively well-tolerated."

Overall, another example of a "research" publication being little more than a puff piece in favor of a drug. With big-name academics signed on as authors to add credibilty and just a fine print mention of a ghostwriter.

I thank an anonymous reader for alerting me to this study.

Citation:

Thase ME, Trivedi MH, Nelson JC, Fava M, Swanink R, Tran Q, Pikalov A, Yang H, Carlson BX, Marcus RN, Berman RM (2008). Examining the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole in major depressive disorder: A pooled analysis of 2 studies Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 10, 440-447

Abilify For Depression: I'm Not the Only Skeptic

In April 2008, findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology which claimed that the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole (Abilify) was an effective add-on treatment for depression. I heartily disagreed with the study's conclusions, noting that the patient-rated depression measure did not demonstrate an advantage over placebo, an inconvenient result that the authors tried to explain away as if was unimportant. I also pointed out that the study design was biased in favor of Abilify:

Study Design. Patients were initially assigned to receive an antidepressant plus a placebo for eight weeks. Those who failed to respond to treatment were assigned to Abilify + antidepressant or placebo + antidepressant. Those who responded during the initial 8 weeks were then eliminated from the study. So we've already established that antidepressant + placebo didn't work for these people -- yet they were then assigned to treatment for 6 weeks with the same treatment (!) and compared to those who were assigned antidepressant + Abilify. So the antidepressant + placebo group started at a huge disadvantage because it was already established that they did not respond well to such a treatment regimen. No wonder Abilify came out on top (albeit by a modest margin).

Here's an analogy. A group of 100 students is assigned to be tutored by Tutor A regarding math. The students are all tutored for 8 weeks. The 50 students whose math skills improve are sent on their merry way. That leaves 50 students who did not improve under Tutor A's tutelage. So Tutor B comes along to tutor 25 of these students, while Tutor A sticks with 25 of them. Tutor B's students do somewhat better than Tutor A's students on a math test 6 weeks later. Is Tutor B better than tutor A? Not really a fair comparison between Tutor A and Tutor B, is it?

Some commenters agreed with my take on the matter while others did not. Two letters to the editor published in the latest Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology raised concerns about the study. Alexander Tsai, from UCLA, wrote that he was concerned that the advantage for Abilify was small (2.8 points on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale ) and that the study design was biased in favor of Abilify (agreeing with my earlier point).

Dr. Bernard Carroll, wrote in his letter that:

• The advantage of Abilify over placebo was small
• There was no advantage on the patient-rated measure
• Due to the notable side effect profile of Abilify, clinical raters could likely distinguish patients who were taking Abilify from those who were taking placebo, which could have biased their ratings. Thus, he questions if the study was truly double-blind.
• The authors did not report whether the occurrence of several side effects were more common on Abilify than placebo. Dr. Carroll calculated that akathisia, fatigue, restlessness, and insomnia were all significantly more common on Abilify and wondered why the authors did not include such data in their report.
• The authors did not note the relationship between akathisia (severe restlessness/tension) and suicide, which is concerning given that Abilify produces akathisia in droves.

The Defense: Robert Berman from Bristol-Myers Squibb wrote back to defend the study. His points were not impressive. Noting that Abilify did not outperform placebo on the self-report measure in the trial, he wrote that "this may be due to the lower sensitivity" of the measure. So the drug wasn't the failure -- blame the rating scale instead. The people at BMS picked the scale and when it doesn't give results they like, then suddenly it's a poor measurement of depression. I bet Dr. Berman would not have complained about the instrument had it yielded results in favor of Abilify.

Adverse Events: As for not reporting adverse events, well, there's a perfectly good explanation hidden somewhere in here...

...we have clearly reported rates of spontaneously reported treatment-emergent events that occurred at a rate of 5% or greater in any treatment group. As this study is not designed to collect adverse events in a systematic manner, statistical comparison between treatment groups is not appropriate.

So let me get this straight. They discussed "spontaneously reported" events, which would refer to the events reported by the patients without much questioning. Everyone knows that spontaneous reports are a joke because most side effects are not spontaneously reported. Based on spontaneous report, the rate of sexual side effects in SSRI's is quite low. But when you bother to ask people taking SSRIs questions about their sexual functioning, the rates of sexual problems increase drastically. So when Dr. Berman goes on to write that no suicide-related adverse events were reported in the study, keep in mind that the study investigators were not asking about such events. So it may be more accurate to say that nobody committed suicide during the study, but nobody was tracking suicidal ideation unless patients reported such problems themselves. Yes, suicidal ideation was covered a little bit by measures used in the study, but a more systematic assessment would have been helpful. To give the authors credit, at least they did include a couple measures of extrpyramidal symptoms, from which we gathered that akathisia happened in 25% of patients. Yikes.

Saying that the study was not designed to collect adverse event data in a systematic manner is frightening. If adverse event collection was not systematic, then the authors writing in the study report that "adverse events were generally mild to moderate" is meaningless. You can't say that adverse event data were not collected in any sort of systematic manner then also say that the study is "safe," as the authors claim in their paper. This is the definition of duplicitous. In any case, the authors should have reported that several adverse events were significantly more likely to occur on Abilify than placebo rather than making the ridiculous claim that comparing adverse event rates between treatment and placebo is not appropriate.

Dr. Berman does not address the less than 3-point benefit for Abilify over placebo. There is also no real explanation to address the concerns of Dr. Tsai and myself, who noted that the study design was biased in favor of Abilify.

Kudos to Dr. Caroll and Dr. Tsai for taking the time to write excellent letters which addressed quite problematic issues in this study. Every time I see a commercial pimping Abilify for depression, I cringe. It's good to know that some people in the medical community are seeing through the weak research that "supports" the use of Abilify as an antidepressant.

Citation for the offending study below:

Ronald N Marcus et al. (2008). The Efficacy and Safety of Aripiprazole as Adjunctive Therapy in Major Depressive Disorder Journal of Clinical Psychoopharmacology, 28 (2), 156-165

Abilify for Depression: Second Round a Lot Like the First Round

In July 2007, I posted about a very strangely designed study that claimed to show Abilify was an effective treatment for depression when added to antidepressant medication. Here is what I wrote about it then...

Study Design. Patients were initially assigned to receive an antidepressant plus a placebo for eight weeks. Those who failed to respond to treatment were assigned to Abilify + antidepressant or placebo + antidepressant. Those who responded during the initial 8 weeks were then eliminated from the study. So we've already established that antidepressant + placebo didn't work for these people -- yet they were then assigned to treatment for 6 weeks with the same treatment (!) and compared to those who were assigned antidepressant + Abilify. So the antidepressant + placebo group started at a huge disadvantage because it was already established that they did not respond well to such a treatment regimen. No wonder Abilify came out on top (albeit by a modest margin).

Here's an analogy. A group of 100 students is assigned to be tutored by Tutor A regarding math. The students are all tutored for 8 weeks. The 50 students whose math skills improve are sent on their merry way. That leaves 50 students who did not improve under Tutor A's tutelage. So Tutor B comes along to tutor 25 of these students, while Tutor A sticks with 25 of them. Tutor B's students do somewhat better than Tutor A's students on a math test 6 weeks later. Is Tutor B better than tutor A? Not really a fair comparison between Tutor A and Tutor B, is it?

Well, these experts in study design decided that once was just not enough, so they ran the same exact study twice. Same huge design flaw. Similar results. The results are posted in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. By a statistically significant, though not overwhelming margin, those on Abilify + antidepressant improved more than those on antidepressant + placebo. Or did they?

Dear Patients: We Don't Care What You Say. On depression measures rated by clinicians, patients did modestly better on Abilify. But on measures completed by the patients, there was no statistically significant difference between Abilify + antidepressant vs. placebo + antidepressant. So the patients didn't actually perceive themselves as being less depressed -- um, shouldn't the opinion of the patients matter? The message that the authors are trying to make is that the opinion of the clinical raters matters much more than the opinions of patients, which strikes me as ludicrous. These people are depressed, not floridly psychotic, so I think they would have a pretty decent idea as to their mental health status.

The authors attempted to explain this inconvenient finding away as follows:

These [patient-rated] scales were included for exploratory purposes, and the lack of emphasis on these ratings may have contributed to increased variance. The corresponding clinician-rated versions were not included, which may have hindered patients in responding accurately to the self-rated version.

I'm really confused here -- what do they mean that a "lack of emphasis" resulted in increased variance? And as for accusing the patients of not completing the ratings accurately, that just sounds like sour grapes to me. If there was a significant difference favoring Abilify, you can bet your life savings that the authors would not have accused the patients of reporting inaccurately. Only if a drug is shown to not work can we accuse patients of inaccurate reporting because all new drugs must work; such is the dogma of modern day psychopharmacology gone wild.

The authors close their paper with the following jewel:

Given the public health challenge of antidepressant nonresponse, this is a significant clinical finding.

We're getting knee-deep in bogus public health claims these days. Even though patients don't perceive that they improved any more on Abilify relative to a placebo, this is a significant benefit to public health? You bet. If someone has a defense for designing a study in such a manner, I'm all ears, but this really looks like a blatantly biased study that still managed to find no benefit (according to patients) in using Abilify.

Why I Love the Discussion Section

A recent study in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology found that aripiprazole (Abilify) offered no benefit over placebo in treating biploar depression. Well, at least that's what the results showed, but the discussion section told a bit of a different story. At the end of eight weeks, Abilify failed to beat placebo on either the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale or the Clinical Global Impressions -- Bipolar Severity of Illness Scale.

It is rare that an industry-sponsored article reports negative results and it would be nigh-impossible to find a published industry-sponsored study that failed to put a happy spin on the negative results. Sure, the results were negative in this study, but if the dosing was different, the treatment could have worked. There's always a loophole, some possibility that results would have been dandy if something were different. Check this out:

It is possible that the dosing regimen used in the current studies may have been too high for this patient group, or that titration was too rapid. Specifically, the unexpectedly high rates of discontinuation caused by any reason or because of AEs suggest that the aripiprazole starting dose (10 mg/d) may have been too high and that the dose titration (weekly adjustments in 5-mg increments according to clinical response and tolerability) may have been too rapid...

However, because preliminary data indicate that aripiprazole may have a potential value as adjunctive therapy in patients with bipolar depression, future studies that focus on the use of aripiprazole as adjunctive therapy using a better-tolerated dosing schedule with a more conservative escalation may be of greater value for the treatment of patients with bipolar depression...

And my favorite part...

Although the improvements in MADRS total scores in the current aripiprazole studies did not separate statistically significantly from placebo at end point, the significant effects observed with aripiprazole monotherapy within the first 6 weeks are clinically meaningful and similar to the effects seen with olanzapine monotherapy and lamotrigine monotherapy in patients with bipolar depression.

OK, so the argument is that while treatment did not work at the end of 8 weeks, the effects after 6 weeks were really super-duper impressive. Gimme a break. The authors did not present the actual numbers on the MADRS (the primary manner in which depression was assessed); rather, the data were presented in figures. Um, isn't science supposed to be based on numbers -- shouldn't they be provided in the text of the paper? At 6 weeks, the difference in scores between Abilify and placebo looks to be a little more than 2 points on the MADRS, a rating scale that spans from 0 to 60. And if a drug makes a person 2 points better relative to placebo, then the findings are "clinically meaningful"? Keep lowering that bar, fellas. While the discussion reaches out to rescue the reputation of Abilify, it does (to be fair), also point out on a couple occasions that Abilify was not particularly efficacious at the end of 8 weeks and was related to a worse safety/tolerability profile than placebo. In fact, relative to some other studies I've dissed regarding their sunny presentation of unimpressive results (like this one), the current Abilify article is a model of fair discussion.

Side note: Akathisia was reported by about a quarter of patients taking Abilify. The funny thing about akathisia is that it is not well-defined in this study or in many others. Is it a problem with movements, mental tension, something else, or what? It would seem important to know, given that Abilify apparently causes akathisia in droves. Do a Pubmed search for aripiprazole and akathisia and you'll see what I mean. A couple descriptions of akathisia follow:

• Increased tenseness, restlessness, insomnia and a feeling of being very uncomfortable
• On the first day of treatment he reacted with marked anxiety and weepiness, on the second day felt so terrible with such marked panic at night that the medication was cancelled
• Another: A movement disorder characterized by a feeling of inner restlessness and a compelling need to be in constant motion as well as by actions such as rocking while standing or sitting, lifting the feet as if marching on the spot and crossing and uncrossing the legs while sitting. People with akathisia are unable to sit or keep still, complain of restlessness, fidget, rock from foot to foot, and pace.

Zetia: Just the Latest Chapter in Hiding Data

There have been many interesting posts written about how data regarding Zetia were buried for quite some time. One of the main storylines in this saga is that it took about two years after the study was completed to analyze and release the data. The most disappointing aspect of this story is that few if any outlets are noting that this is not a fluke event.

Clinical trials are a huge part of how drugs are marketed. After examining clinical trial data, physicians who prescribe their drug believe they are engaging in evidence-based medicine. Granted, most physicians have little training in actually understanding statistics or research design, which are key in understanding clinical trial evidence. But that's not the point of this post...

The point is that Zetia is just the latest chapter in a lengthy volume of hidden clinical trial data. Here's one study in which it appears that data were reported on 1 of 15 participants. There was also a study examining Zoloft for PTSD in which data were reported about 10 years after the end of the study. How about suicide attempts apparently vanishing from a study report on Prozac? And a 5-6 year delay in reporting results on Effexor for depression in youth?

The above reports on hiding data were all based on studies I encountered randomly. I did not go fishing to find studies which published their data many years after it was collected or only reported a partial picture of their results. I was just looking through journals and happened to run across the studies mentioned above. Publication bias does not just occur when negative results are simply not published (which seems a fairly common practice), but it also occurs when negative results are published after a long delay. Delaying negative data means raking in more cash before the negative data reduces prescriptions for a product.

So you can be outraged by the Zetia story if you'd like, but please don't act surprised. Similar events will happen again and again and again.

Update: Welcome to those of you who have clicked the link from the Wall Street Journal. Please take a look around to find a series of documented incidents where science has been overrun by marketing. Add comments as you deem appropriate.

Atypical Antipsychotics for the Elderly: A Booming Business

A recent report in the St. Petersburg Times has indicated that between 20-26% of atypical antipsychotic prescriptions are for elderly people. The drugs are typically given in order to help calm patients. This is interesting because the data supporting their efficacy is very weak (1, 2, 3). While the article in the Times is interesting and discusses the problems with the drugs in terms of side effects, it, along with other media coverage with which I am familiar, is missing a major point: Atypical antipsychotics show minimal effects over the benefit given by a placebo. They are also linked to an increased risk of death. So you are increasing the odds of your patients dying, but you are, according to clinical trial research, providing minimal clinical benefit.

Here's a shocking snippet from the article:

Testifying at a congressional hearing, Dr. David Graham, a prominent FDA drug safety expert, was asked if he had issues with any medications already on the market.

"I would pay careful attention to antipsychotic medications. ... The problem with these drugs are that we know that they are being used extensively off-label in nursing homes to sedate elderly patients with dementia and other types of disorders. ...

"But the fact is, is that it increases mortality perhaps by 100 percent. It doubles mortality. So I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation on this and you have probably got 15,000 elderly people in nursing homes dying each year from the off-label use of antipsychotic medications. ...

"With every pill that gets dispensed in a nursing home, the drug company is laughing all the way to the bank."

Granted, this is a back of the envelope calculation that may be inaccurate. But nobody disputes that these medications are linked to increased odds of dying for the elderly, and someone needs to get the science writers to read the research (cited above) that these medications don't work very well. It is hard to think of a bigger scam -- works as well as a sugar pill but increases your odds of dying. The public outrage won't start until people in the media gets rid of headlines that read:

Dementia relief, with a huge side effect: The off-label use of some drugs is helping elderly patients, but may be killing thousands.

Again, the data do not support that these drugs are much more helpful than a placebo, making the headline misleading. Please incorporate the actual research findings regarding atypical antipsychotics into the story and let's try again...

Newer antipsychotic medications offer little to no benefit over placebo, and are killing thousands of elderly patients.

Doctors talk about the risk-benefit ratio with various treatments, which makes sense. When a class of drugs seems to have little benefit and a high cost, both financially and in terms of side effects (including death), shouldn't we try something else? The media create the outrage and then the change occurs. What about the academic experts who have participated in studying these drugs? They should be the most aware of the small at best benefits and the high side effect burden. Yet instead, some of them are churning out tripe such as the latest study pimping Abilify for dementia. If academics are asleep at the wheel, then it is up to the media to start the outrage. I generally like this St. Pete Times article, but if even the most skeptical writers are still claiming the drugs work, it is not a good sign.

But What Else Can Be Done? It is true that elderly patients with dementia can be difficult to manage and that giving them a chemical restraint such as Zyprexa may slow a person down. But how about the following crazy idea, again taken from the St. Pete Times piece...

There are other options, but they take time, money and effort.

At the Cobble Hill Health Center in Brooklyn, Dr. Louis Mudannayake decided to try to change the thinking at his 400-bed nursing home.

Ignoring naysayers and the doomsday predictions of senior nurses, 18 months ago he put together a team of pharmacists, social workers and recreational therapists to review every atypical prescription.

If a new roommate caused agitation, room assignments were changed. If a new aide was hit while dressing a patient, the aide was given special training on that patient's preferences and routine.

Though the nursing home's resources were initially stretched, Mudannayake said the quality of patients' lives improved. "Ultimately, I'm convinced financial expenditures will be diminished, because it's easier to manage a patient who is calm," he said.

Atypical use at Cobble Hill has been cut from about 25 percent of patients to about 10 percent, he said. Almost 40 percent of patients were taken off the drugs completely; 75 percent of those still on the drugs have had their dosage reduced.

"We instituted a cultural change. That's what's required to bring the numbers down," said Mudannayake, who said psychiatric hospitalizations did not increase as medication dropped.

"You'll always have doctors say there's nothing else to use but atypicals, and I agree there are a small minority of patients where you need to use these drugs. But not in the numbers we are using them."

I see, so you can do something else besides dole out Zyprexa and its siblings like candy. But it takes time, effort, and using one's training in mental health. You'd think that psychologists and/or other mental health professionals could easily be hired as consultants to devise such plans. Of course, it is a lot easier to just attempt to sedate chemically over and over again. But are we supposed to do what is easy, even if it is not in the best interest of the patient?

Shame, Shame, Shame. In my humble opinion, this phase atypical antipsychotic mania will be associated with gigantic shame on the psychiatric profession. Just wait a few years. The amazing part is how few "leading lights" within the field have stepped up to the plate and pointed out the problems associated with these medications. When they were first released, all sorts of "key opinion leaders" happily pushed them as a huge improvement over older antipsychotics in terms of treating schizophrenia. Turns out that was mostly hype. Then the atypicals for bipolar rush hit full force, again with the help of "key opinion leaders."

Without academics pimping these treatments well beyond what was scientifically justifiable, these medications would never have achieved such huge success, but now this rather dangerous group of medicines is used for virtually every psychiatric disorder under the sun. These uses include "bipolar disorder" in infants, ADHD, and dementia. Let's put the most vulnerable individuals on the riskiest treatments despite no clear evidence that they work particularly well. There is indeed some evidence for the efficacy of these medications in the short-term treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and in a small number of trials, even some long-term evidence of efficacy. But their indiscriminant use across the board for virtually every condition brings great shame upon psychiatry as a profession, on Big Pharma for its slick marketing strategies (1, 2), and most especially upon academic psychiatry for its morally bankrupt role as a group of salespeople who have misrepresented scientific findings to help promote drugs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

Update: I forgot to publicly tip my hat to Furious Seasons, where I first saw the link to St. Pete Times piece. Philip Dawdy also added some spot-on commentary, as is the norm at Furious Seasons.

Latest Abilify for Alzheimer's Study is a Complete Joke: Here's Why

A trial has recently appeared in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. This study claims that aripiprazole (Abilify) is safe and effective in treating Alzheimer’s patients who presented signs of psychosis. As I will demonstrate, anyone with an ounce of common sense and certainly anyone who passed a basic statistics course can see these claims (especially the claims regarding efficacy) are bordering on hilarious.

Efficacy: Here’s what the authors said…

Apripiprazole 10 mg/day was efficacious, and safe for psychosis associated with AD, significantly improving psychotic symptoms, agitation, and clinical global impression.

Quickie stats lesson. In determining if there is a “statistically significant difference” between two groups, a large factor is the size of the sample. Just because a difference is “statistically significant” does not imply that the difference actually means anything of value. With a large sample size (as was seen in the present study), very small effects can become “statistically significant.”

Next, let's discuss the size of these treatment effects -- how helpful was Abilify? Mean change on the Neuopsychiatric Inventory – Nursing Home Version was 17.6 points for the 10 mg/day Abilify group and 13.0 points for the placebo group. With the knowledge of the mean change and the standard deviations from both groups, one can easily calculate the effect size, which indicates the magnitude of the treatment effect (i.e., did people get a little better or a lot better?). The effect size (using Cohen’s d) was .14. The general guideline is that d = .20 is a small effect, so less than small – I guess you could call it miniscule.

How about other measures used in the study? Here are a few...

• Neuropsychiatric Inventory – Nursing Home Version Psychosis subscale: Effect size = .19
• Clinical Global Impressions – Severity: Effect size = .12
• Clinical Global Impressions – Improvement: Effect size = .10
• Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale: Effect size = .15
• Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory: Effect size = .17

No matter how you slice it, the effects were all very small. Let’s also do a common sense test. The Clinical Global Impressions – Improvement Scale asks one question. The wording may vary slightly across studies, but one example is:

Rate total improvement whether or not in your judgment it is due entirely to drug treatment. Compared to his/her condition at admission to the project, how much has he/she changed?

In the current Abilify study, the average advantage for people taking Abilify 10 mg/day versus placebo was 0.3 points. There are seven points on the rating scale. For example, at one point on the rating scale is minimally improved and the next point is moderately improved. So the average patient on Abilify was 0.3 points closer to moderately improved compared to minimally improved relative to someone on a placebo. Can you say ooooh, big deal?

Anyone who has taken a basic course in statistics should be either laughing or crying (your choice) at this point. What makes this particularly egregious is that the first two authors are academic researchers who absolutely must have received this lesson dozens of times during their research training, so there is no pleading ignorance on their part.

Statistical Significance: Okay, maybe this is a smaller point. But when I plug their numbers (means, SD, N) into a t-test, I find that some of the differences they labeled as statistically significant are no longer statistically significant. Yes, they used a different statistic, which was apparently useful to them, but I thought I’d at least mention that if someone chose to use a different analysis, the data may have turned out as not statistically significant. In any case, the benefits of Abilify as shown in this study are minimal at best.

Safety: Okay, so Abilify does not work very well, but at least it won’t kill you, right? 18 people died across the course of the study, including 3% of the placebo group and 7% of the Abilify 10 mg/day group. Cerebrovascular adverse events were reported for four patients in the 10/mg Abilify group and zero people in the placebo group. As has become nearly an essential disclaimer in studies these days, the authors write: “Eighteen deaths occurred during the study, none of which were considered to be related to study medication. [my emphasis]” Of course not. The study is funded by a Bristol-Myers Squibb, and the company and its “independent” academic investigators determine if the drug could have caused any deaths. The fox is policing the henhouse.

Discussion: The best part of any article is the discussion, because it is a marketing exhibit.

The results of this placebo-controlled fixed-dose study indicate that aripiprazole impacts beneficially on psychotic symptoms in institutionalized patients suffering from psychosis associated with AD; this is the first such study to report improvement in both primary and secondary outcome measures in this patient population...

Aripiprazole also produced significant improvement in other aspects of psychological and behavioral symptoms, as evident from changes in secondary outcome scores...

Thus, the results indicate that the use of aripiprazole cannot only alleviate the specific symptoms of psychosis, but can also reduce the overall psychological and behavioral burden of AD...

Interestingly, the 5 and 10 mg/day doses of aripiprazole show robust efficacy to improve the CMAI scores from baseline to endpoint, reinforcing the evidence that atypical antipsychotics are efficacious in the treatment of agitation. [Apparently “robust efficacy” means having a miniscule impact relative to placebo.]

Again, see above commentary about the extremely small extent to which Abilify “impacts beneficially” upon participants in this study.

To the authors’ credit, they mention that

Elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with atypical antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death compared to placebo.

Right, kind of like what happened in this study, at least for the patients who took 10 mg of Abilify. I realize it may have been a chance occurrence that the Abilify 10 mg patients died at a higher rate, but when you combine minimal treatment benefit with doubling the risk of death, why the hell would anyone choose to prescribe Abilify based on results from this study?

Believe it or not, there are a couple of other points about the study that I could prattle on about, but I think the point has been made.

Journal Policies: If you wander over to the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry’s Instructions for Authors, you can see the following:

Provide measures of effect size liberally. Give cautions when statistical significance has doubtful clinical or practical significance.

What I have done in this post is provide the measures of effect size since the authors did not provide a single measure of effect size. Not a single one. But wait, if this paper clearly violates one of the main principles listed under “Statistic Guidelines” for the Instructions to Authors, how did it get published? Good question. And that takes me right back to my earlier posts on peer review and how the “experts” who review papers sometimes do so in a slipshod, lazy, biased, and/or incompetent fashion (1, 2, 3, 4). And the editor? Did he even skim this manuscript to see if it conformed to the guidelines of the journal?

So a paper that flouts the journal’s own policies is published, a paper in which statements regarding a product’s efficacy are far overblown. Perhaps drug reps will be disseminating this wonderful piece of science nationwide or even internationally to help get patients onto Abilify because now their marketing is based on "science." Will physicians see through this sort of ruse and laugh the reps out of the office, or will they briefly scan the abstract, conclude the drug is effective, and then whip out their prescription pads? You tell me.

Last, but not least, I present a Golden Goblet Award to the academic authors of the study as well as to the coauthors at Bristol-Myers Squibb. Your ability to present teeny treatment effects as "robust" and get away with it is notable. Great work. You deserve a good cut of however many $$$ are added to BMS's coffers from unneeded prescriptions of Abilify for dementia.