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

Wanted: Drug Pimp/Key Opinion Leader

Daniel Carlat from the Carlat Psychiatry Blog received an invitation to the key opinion leader club from the good people at Schering-Plough. The company wanted him to read their slides to other physicians in order to promote their brand spanikn' new antipsychotic/mood stabilizer Saphris (asenapine). Because, of course, if he reads the slides, they are more credible than if read by one of those sleazy drug reps; it's so much more classy and believable if an "independent" psychiatrist reads the company's marketing copy.

Carlat posted the documents used in the attempt to recruit him (cover letter, speaker bureau arrangement, pimp, er, speaker fees) Everyone should read them. Speakers are only allowed to rake in $170,000 of dirty money through this program. I suppose anything more would make them look like shameless drug pimps. But if you were to take, say, $50k for your "educational" services, that would be totally acceptable, right? I hereby nominate anyone who accepts Schering-Plough's generous offer for the much coveted Golden Goblet Award.

What's the deal with this Saphris drug, anyway? One neuropsychologist reviewed the data and found that it promises to be yet another also-ran atypical antipsychotic, at best. Some have also raised questions of whether the drug deserved FDA approval at all. Get ready for some ghostwritten articles that present the evidence surrounding Saphris in a ridiculously biased manner, for key opinion leaders to travel to conferences extolling its virtues, and for the rest of the usual marketing tricks.

The Asenapine Chronicles?

I'm not sure what to make of this. A lot of documents have become available on the Shearlings Got Plowed blog, which deal with the new antipsychotic drug asenapine. If I had the time, I'd be burying myself in the documents, as SGP claims that something fishy is going on. I encourage all interested readers to take a good, long look at the documents to see what (if anything) is happening.

Documents such as this one will catch your interest...

Thanks For Your Service, Now Take This Pill

According to a freshly published study, one in five depressed patients receiving services through the VA healthcare system in the United States is taking an antipsychotic. Of those taking antipsychotics, 43% were taking them at high doses (schizophrenia doses rather than lower doses typically used in treating depression). The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, excluded patients with schizophrenia or bipolar diagnoses -- this means that the antipsychotics given to the depressed folks weren't mainly used to treat psychosis or mania. The sample size was over 190,000 patients, so one can't fault the study for not including enough patients. The researchers examined drugs taken within one week of their last antipsychotic prescription and found that 24% of patients were taking multiple antipsychotics at that point.

The most used medication was Seroquel. This is not suprising. Patients seen in mental health speciality clinics were the most likely to receive antipsychotics. So what are the consequences? Well, let's see. There's the high rate of akathisia and medicore efficacy of Abilify. And there's some tricky research involving Risperdal that seemed to suggest the manipulation of the statistics was more impressive than the actual drug in treating depression. Seroquel's unimpressive efficacy and problematic side effects are also not a ball of fun. And so forth. Isn't "progress" beautiful?

I know what some people are thinking, so before you waste your valuable time with a comment, consider this. I'm aware that many of these patients are suffering much more than a simple case of the blues. That doesn't mean we should throw heavy duty antipsychotics at them, particularly at high doses. Certainly there has to be something else. What might that be? Some psychotherapy, some medications, some case management - I ain't saying it'll be easy. But I'm willing to bet that chucking antipsychotics at them en masse is not the solution.

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

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.

Seroquel, Haldol, and The Full Court Media Press

I was very pleased to have been acknowledged in a recent story in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The reporter, Jeremy Olson, wrote the following in his story:

An Internet psychiatry blog first raised questions March 2 about the research Schulz presented at the APA conference and why it lacked any of the company's findings."It raises troubling questions when an independent academic author presents results that are in direct opposition to the underlying data," wrote the blogger, an anonymous academic.

He didn't cite my blog by name -- the unwieldy long name which I stupidly chose for the site may be responsible for that -- but I'm nonetheless grateful that my site was acknowledged for its work on this story. He is referencing my post in which I noted that a University of Minnesota psychiatry professor (Charles Schulz) had stated in a press release that Seroquel was "more effective" than Haldol. This was based upon his analysis of data comparing Seroquel to the much older antipsychotic drug Haldol in the treatment of schizophrenia. Yet an internal AstraZeneca analysis found that Haldol was actually more effective than Seroquel. Both the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune, the two big papers in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area ran stories on the controversy.

When asked about his lavishing of praise on Seroquel in the press release, the Pioneer Press said:

In an interview with the Pioneer Press last week, Schulz defended his research and presentation of Seroquel as accurate and ethical. However, he acknowledged the corporate press release from his APA presentation might have exaggerated in calling Seroquel "significantly superior."

"You know," he said, "I can't disagree with that."

Schulz said the following in the Star Tribune:

In an interview this week, Schulz said the pharmaceutical company never shared its doubts about Seroquel, which went on to become a blockbuster, with annual sales of $4.5 billion today. "I don't recall anybody calling up and saying, oh my goodness, we have this problem," he said. At the same time, Schulz acknowledged that his own study did not really show that Seroquel was more effective than the older drug. "That's a bit of a misunderstanding," he said. "I think the overall message is that it works about the same."

Thanks to a helpful reader, I was able to track down what appears to be Schulz's presentation from 2000. It says "...quetiapine was clearly statistically significantly superior to placebo as well as to haloperidol..." This appears to contradict his statement that Haldol and Seroquel "work about the same." Again, the data from Schulz's presentation don't match AstraZeneca's internal analysis. Schulz is obviously backing away from his earlier praise for Seroquel, for which he deserves some credit. The problem was that Schulz, along with a laundry list of researchers in psychiatry were caught in a tidal wave of unbridled enthusiasm for the atypical antipsychotics, first as wonder drugs for schizophrenia, then as the Next Big Thing in bipolar, then moving into the world of depression and anxiety disorders in the absence of decent supportive evidence.

Interesting sidenote: While Schulz was presenting on the wonders of Seroquel, he was likely quite unaware that AstraZeneca has conducted a study (Study 15) which had found that Seroquel compared unfavorably to Haldol in preventing psychotic relapse among patients with schizophrenia who began the study in full or partial symptom remisison. Furious Seasons has some additional reporting on this study. It is a near certainty that Schulz was not informed about this study's results, as this could have changed his lofty opinion of Seroquel. This points to the problem of researchers relying on data collected by drug companies -- how are researchers to know they are receiving all of the data?

Note to key opinion leaders: If you don't realize it by now, you are pawns. You are being used to place an academic veneer on the marketing of drugs. The drugs that you are marketing as major breakthroughs typically offer little to no benefit over existing treatment and may cause a slew of nasty side effects. Decide if you want to be a scientist or a marketer. Don't try to do both at the same time, because the odds are pretty good that your scientific credentials will end up being tarnished. Just ask this guy. Now that the media are paying much closer attention to the conflicted interests and skewed science that sadly underlie much of psychiatry these days, it would be a good idea to maintain appearances.

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

Seroquel, Weight Gain, And the Pursuit of GAD and Depression Indications

Jim Edwards at BNET dug through the Seroquel documents and found many instances of AZ employees noting that Seroquel causes weight gain. Yet the company seemed bent on keeping this information hidden. As I mentioned last week, this sure seems a lot like Zyprexa redux, except with more sex scandals and perhaps more buried data. I suggest that everyone head over to BNET and see the details.

Despite all the bad news, AZ is pressing onward with its application for FDA approval for Seroquel in both generalized anxiety disorder and depression. Yikes. I broke the story earlier this week about the "scientific literature" claiming that Seroquel worked better than Haldol in the treatment of schizophrenia, yet internal company data showed Haldol as superior to Seroquel in reducing schizophrenia symptoms. Between discrepant data, the apparent hiding of negative clinical trials and trying to keep doctors distracted from data indicating that Seroquel caused weight gain, I think that Seroquel's luck may have ran out -- my bet is that the FDA won't approve the drug for depression or GAD. But I've been wrong before; the FDA did approve Abilify as an add-on treatment for depression based on pretty flimsy evidence.

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

Big Drugs, Small Brains?

I've read on and off about brain shrinkage being linked to antipsychotics. I have not paid a lot of attention to research on the topic but kept it on my mental backburner. And now Furious Seasons notes that Nancy Andreasen is reporting that her research shows antipsychotics are strongly linked to brains getting smaller. The longer one takes these drugs, the smaller the brain. Does anyone want to set up a YouTube "This is your brain on drugs" video?

Interestingly, a group of researchers has claimed that olanzapine (Zyprexa) has "neuroprotective" qualities; it's good for your brain. Um, color me skeptical. Their research was based on rats, whereas Andreasen's work is on humans. Andreasen's latest work is not yet published, making it difficult to judge the quality of the findings. But research on monkeys exposed to antipsychotics found that:

In conclusion, chronic exposure of non-human primates to antipsychotics was associated with reduced brain volume.

I am not a neuroscientist, but if both sets of findings were accurate, then we'd have people taking antipsychotics who have smaller but better brains. The more neuroscientifically inclined may wish to comment on this possibility, because it seems a little odd to me.

Atypical Antipsychotics for All, Oregon Chapter

Oh boy. Here we go again. A study published online ahead of print at the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry notes that among Oregon Medicaid patients who received a prescription for an atypical antipsychotic:

• 52% had a depression diagnosis
• 34% had an anxiety diagnosis
• 15% had a PTSD diagnosis

But only 15% had a schizophrenia diagnosis and 27% had a bipolar diagnosis. So... the majority of atypical scripts were written off-label. Seroquel was the most frequently prescribed atypical, followed by Zyprexa, then Risperdal.

Doses less than what are typically given to treat schizhophrenia or bipolar disorder (subtherapeutic dosing) were quite common. As in 86% of Seroquel scripts were subtherapeutic, 59% of of Risperdal scripts, and 48% of Zyprexa prescriptions. Wait, am I calling for higher doses of these drugs? That doesn't sound like me at all, right? Don't worry, I haven't lost my mind (I think).

Here's the deal. The authors suspect that a lot of these low-dose prescriptions are being written to manage agitation and as sleep aids. The authors note that there are likely less expensive/more effective medications for such conditions. Not to sound too cavalier, but one could also recommend behavioral treatment to help with sleep as well. Nah, that's crazy talk -- not enough money to be made in that.

Primary care docs were more likely than psychiatrists to dish out low-dose antipsychotics. I guess that the Viva Zyprexa marketing blitz was a success after all. Thanks to Daniel Hartung and collagues for their study, which provides another insight into the wonderful world of atypical antipsychotics as a treatment for everything imaginable. Sorry to beat a dead horse with my zillionth post about the topic of atypicals, but isn't this getting just a teeny bit out of control?


Daniel M Hartung, Jennifer P Wisdom, David A Pollack, Ann M Hamer, Dean G Haxby, Luke Middleton, Bentson H McFarland (2008). Patterns of atypical antipsychotic subtherapeutic dosing among Oregon Medicaid patients Journal of Clinical Psychiatry DOI: ej07m03658

Zyprexa Marketing: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Diagnosis and Hiding Risks

From an excellent piece at Bloomberg:

"The doctor's thinking that he does not see a schizophrenic or bipolar patient,'' [Zyprexa brand manager] Bandick said in a December 2000 internal e- mail to the marketing department. "But he probably does see patients with symptoms of behavior, mood and thought disturbances,'' he wrote. "Even if the doctor does not have diagnosis, he should treat anyway.''

Adding more fuel to the fire I discussed in February 2007:

The document discussed in this post is called the “Zyprexa Primary Care Presentation”. It appears to be a transcript of a speech Mike Bandick, the Zyprexa Brand Manager, gave at the Eli Lilly National Sales Meeting on March 13, 2001.

It is important to note that Zyprexa is only FDA-approved for use in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The document appears to indicate that Bandick was encouraging salespeople to market Zyprexa for treating more than just these two conditions.

Bandick said:

We intend, quite simply, to redefine the way PCPs treat mood, thought and behavioral disturbances. We will continue to focus on symptoms and behaviors that PCPs see every day.

Later he said, referencing Zyprexa:

Broad symptom efficacy in mood, thought, and behavioral disturbances.

It seems curious that Lilly states they did not market Zyprexa for off-label purposes, yet the term “Mood, thought, and behavioral disturbances” seems a fair amount broader than schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In addition, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (especially bipolar I, which is the much more severe form of bipolar in comparison to bipolar II) are uncommon disorders. It is highly unlikely that primary care physicians would see patients with such conditions “every day.” However, it is certainly possible that a PCP may run across individuals who are manifesting much less severe “disturbances”, and it may well have been that it was this group, the patients who exhibited mild “mood, thought, or behavioral” symptoms, for whom Zyprexa was being marketed.

But don't worry -- Lilly will tell you that they don't promote off-label. Do keep in mind that I'm not singling out Lilly, as this kind of thing seems to be par for the course.

As for risks of Zyprexa, well, according to Bloomberg...

Lilly added a warning to its packaging in October 2007 saying that more than half of patients in 13 studies gained an average of 12 pounds after taking the drug for less than a year. It said Zyprexa was more associated with higher blood sugar levels, a risk factor for diabetes, than similar medications.

Before the October 2007 label change, Lilly didn't instruct its sales force to say Zyprexa's diabetes rates were higher, former marketing director David Noesges said in a January deposition.

"We will NOT proactively address the diabetes concern,'' the Zyprexa sales force was advised in 2002, the documents show. "The competition wins if we are distracted into talking about diabetes."

The Bloomberg article is a must-read.

Iloperidone: Vanda Shareholder Train Wreck

Many months back, when shares of Vanda Pharmaceuticals were going for 29 bucks, I warned y'all: Their main product, iloperidone, showed all the signs of being a dud. It has been in the clinical trials stage of development for about a decade and it had yet to receive FDA approval. Um, if a drug was of significant benefit, do you really think it would have been in late-stage development for 10 years? In December 2006, I wrote:

As for iloperidone, one article forecasted that it would hit the market in 2001! Further digging indicated that Titan, which holds the license for iloperidone (to some extent, anyway), was in a spot of trouble for allegedly hiding the drug’s side effect profile. In 1997, according to a report filed with the SEC, “the Company does not have the funds necessary to complete the clinical development of Iloperidone and is currently pursuing several financing alternatives including corporate partnering arrangements and off balance sheet financing to complete development of Iloperidone.” I assume this is where Vanda got involved. I could find not a single published trial of ilopderidone in either PubMed or Clinicaltrials.gov. If anybody can direct me to clinical trials data for this product, I’d love to see it! So this drug has been in the clinical trials phase of development for nearly a decade, and there is no published data to show its efficacy. I’m not impressed.

My personal opinion is that you are better off burning your money than investing in Vanda after the huge jump earlier this week.

Now, according to Reuters, Vanda received a not approvable letter from the FDA "over concerns of efficacy" regarding iloperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia. Ouch. This after the drug was ludicrously named "Fiapta," then "Fanapta." Hello?? Vanda shares can now be had at about a dollar per share -- down about 95% from when I initially warned everyone to steer clear of the company's stock.

There is always a chance that the FDA has a change of heart; it's possibly even worth buying at this point, as even obvious dogs have their day on the market occasionally, such as Corcept Therapeutics. I have no faith that any of Vanda's products are worth anything clinically, but I think they might be able to BS enough analysts and investors to help drive up the price up a few bucks per share. Note that this is not official investment advice.

Conflicts, Bad Science, and Corlux

Recently, the watchful eyes of Charles Grassley have been peering into the bank accounts of big name psychiatrists. Melissa DelBello and Joe Biederman (1, 2) from the Wonderful World of Child Bipolar were first, and now Alan Schatzberg has been hit. Schatzberg is the Chair of Psychiatry at Stanford University. He is also the President of the American Psychiatric Association. In other words, he's kind of a big deal.

Pharmalot hits the details, but the gist is that Schatzberg is deeply involved at Corcept Therapeutics, a company for which he is chair of the scientific advisory board and holds a large amount of stock. According to Grassley, he did not disclose some of his stock sale profits or the magnitude of his multimillion dollar stock holdings in the company. Additionally, Schatzberg allegedly underreported income received from other drug companies. It appears that Schatzberg was not really required to disclose some of this information, so according to my brief review of the information, it is quite possible that he has broken no rules. Now, whether the rules need to be changed is a different story. No offense to Grassley, but I was well ahead of him on part of this story, noting in April 2007 that Schatzberg had a mega-conflict of interest going with Corcept. I also noted previously that Schatzberg was on the Zyprexa bandwagon, helping to "educate" fellow physicians about the Lilly wonder drug.

The Real Problem: But amidst all this discussion of conflicts of interest, I am afraid that we are getting a bit diverted from the main problem, that of shoddy science. It is admittedly interesting noting that Schatzberg is somehow supposed to be an independent, disinterested scientist while standing to make an absolute truckload of money if his sponsored product succeeds. But it runs deeper. While Schatzberg is a bigwig at Corcept, let's review how Corcept's main product mifepristone (RU-486; yes, the abortion pill) has done.

Mifepristone (aka Corlux) is intended to work as a treatment for psychotic depression. One main problem: It doesn't relieve depressive symptoms. In multiple trials, it has failed to demonstrate antidepressant properties. The CEO of Corcept and another member of their scientific advisory board have previously tried to spin away such inconvenient data by painting negative results as positive. To give Corcept credit, their scientists are consistent spinmeisters, seemingly always able to dredge a positive from obviously negative findings. Schatzberg has been an author on a couple Corlux-related papers that were shredded by independent analysts, who found statistical problems and overly optimistic interpretations of the study results. As the senior member of the Scientific Advisory Board, I assume that Schatzberg had some input on the other study reports that also overstated the efficacy of Corlux.

Could his millions of dollars in Corcept holdings bias Schatzberg, either subconsciously or overtly? You be the judge. But remember that this is not just about conflicts of interest -- this is about science. There is hard evidence that the research on Corlux, which is tightly linked to Schatzberg, has been misinterpreted for the sake of marketing. Conflicts of interest sometimes lead to bad science, but rather than focus just on conflicts of interest, we need to dig a layer deeper and see the poor science -- the shoddy evidence that is used as the foundation for "evidence based medicine" in many cases.

Note also that David Healy has written an interesting piece on the topic of conflicts of interest and bad science, pointing out that a larger problem is lack of access to company-owned data. Think Paxil and suicide. He concludes:

If I were employed in a company marketing department I would much prefer to have the field think that all that is wrong is that a few corrupt academics fail to declare competing interests than to have the field think that company practices that restrict access to data while still claiming the moral high ground of science are the real source of the problem.

I'd love to know what American Psychiatric Association members think about this. The news had already broken about Schatzberg overstating the efficacy of Corlux before he was elected APA president. Do APA members not care that their president has a documented record of putting product promotion before scientific evidence?

Say It Ain't So Joe

It appears that Joe Biederman, King of Child Bipolar, has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar. More specifically, the New York Times and Bloomberg have noted that Biederman has received a great deal of pharma cash (like at least $1.6 million dollars from 2000-2007) and has not been very forthcoming about such funds. How was such undercover money revealed? Courtesy of Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican Senator whose prior investigation unearthed a similar situation impacting another Bipolar Child Key Opinion Leader, Melissa DelBello from the University of Cincinnati.

Here's one example, from Gardiner Harris and Benedict Carey at the New York Times:

In one example, Dr. Biederman reported no income from Johnson & Johnson for 2001 in a disclosure report filed with the university. When asked to check again, he said he received $3,500. But Johnson & Johnson told Mr. Grassley that it paid him $58,169 in 2001, Mr. Grassley found.

So Biederman is supposed to report outside income to the university, but he didn't. Then, his amended reports were in some instances a wild underestimate of his outside income. So how well is the "honor system" working out for conflicts of interest, anyway? To be fair, Biederman is not alone -- two other Harvard psychiatrists (Timothy Wilens and Thomas Spencer) had similar reporting problems. Indeed, there is nothing to say that Biederman's conflicts of interest are any more noteworthy than those of other "stars" in the academic psychiatry universe.

Worry not, Biederman is still interested in saving lives. He is recruiting 4 to 6 year olds with "bipolar disorder" for a Seroquel trial.

For some reason, I thought Biederman's prior comments were worth repeating here. From the Boston Globe:

Biederman dismisses most critics, saying that they cannot match his scientific credentials as co author of 30 scientific papers a year and director of a major research program at the psychiatry department that is top-ranked in the "US News & World Report" ratings.

"The critics 'are not on the same level. We are not debating as to whether [a critic] likes brownies and I like hot dogs. In medicine and science, not all opinions are created equal,' said Biederman, a native of Czechoslovakia who came to Mass. General in 1979 after medical training in Argentina and Israel. He now lives in Brookline.

You tell 'em, Joe! I suppose those who dare critique his conflicts of interest are "not on the same level" as him. Some say that we shouldn't be concerned about conflicts of interest, that we should just look at the quality of a person's work, regardless of financial conflicts. Well, Biederman is the undisputed King of Bipolar in kids, and I'm still awaiting any impressive outcome dataon the "bipolar" kids being treated with antipsychotics. Especially the young kids. 4 year olds on Seroquel -- I'm glad I'm not on Joe's level. Are we better off now that the diagnosis of bipolar has run rampant in kids?

Also see and Furious Seasons and Pharmalot.

Update: Also read the Carlat Psychiatry Blog post on the topic.

Antipsychotics: Global Buckets of Money

Antipsychotics were the sixth best selling class of medications globally in 2007, according to IMS Health. They raked in a cool $20.7 billion, an increase of 10.7% from 2006. Thank God we are doing a better job of overrecognizing, er, appropriately treating bipolar disorder. Antidepressants were #7, at $19.7 billion, down nearly seven percent. This does not appear to be due to declining prescriptions. Blame generics, not decreased prescriptions for the lower numbers. With Cymbalta, Lilly has shown that new antidepressants don't have to be anything special, so it would behoove other companies to release other run of the mill antidepressants, attach a comical, er, highly educational marketing campaign such as Depression Hurts, then watch the money roll in. Just some free advice.

How about the top 10 drugs? Three of them were antipsychotics. No, I'm not kidding. Most surprisingly, Zyprexa had the best figures worldwide, which was interesting given the flat U.S. sales in 2007. Seroquel outsold Zyprexa in the U.S., but Zyprexa had a better run globally. Who knows what tricks are being used to sell Zyprexa internationally? Never mind, it's not like Lilly would do anything sly to market Zyprexa.

The new era of antipsychotics for everything appears to be in full swing.

Furious Seasons is On Fire

Furious Seasons suffers from a chronic case of excellence, but standing out even more than usual were a quartet of posts today that should be read by all:

• DSM-V Authors Tied to Pharma (hardly surprising, but interesting)
• Beatdowns in Texas Mental Hospitals. In the land of TMAP, disgusting behavior is apparently quite widespread.
• Is Bipolar Disorder Overdiagnosed? Nah, of course not.
  
• Seroquel for Depression -- Start the Countdown. Another chapter in the Seroquel for Everything saga about to be put into print. Lock up the women and children, since they'll be the first to be 'Quelled.
  

Academics, Atypicals, and Marketing

Ahhhh, there is nothing like the sweet smell of investigative journalism in the morning. Robert Farley published a whale of an excellent piece on how atypical antispychotics were marketed in the St. Petersburg Times on Saturday. I will discuss some of the tasty tidbits from the article, but you'd be a fool to not read the entire article yourself.

Farley notes that the manufacturers of atypical antipsychotics needed to spread the word that their drugs worked better than older antipsychotics. The one slight problem was that there was not any solid evidence (except when looking at biased studies) showing that the new drugs were superior. So if the companies could not advertise this point directly, they needed to enlist third parties to say it for them. In other words, it was time for some information laundering. In what has become the standard operating procedure for the field, "independent" academics were enlisted to make recommendations that the new drugs were better than the old drugs.

So hire a few academics as consultants, fly them off to a "consensus conference," and have them generate treatment guidelines. Would the guidelines be biased? Well, yeah, but that's pretty much the point -- science be damned, it's about market share, baby. Like the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP), which helped to propel the atypicals to first-line treatment (and second-line, for that matter), and other TMAP clones across the nation. Throw in a few studies of the effectiveness of TMAP, then misinterpret their results, and BAM, you've now established (based on little to no credible evidence) that atypical antipsychotics are the new wonder drugs. And with the wind at your back, hey, why not see if you can market these drugs for everything? After all, you've got the support of the "independent" academic community...

Also see Psych Central's take on the story.