10 Ways Scientists Lie About Drugs

Thursday, August 6th, 2009
test

Does the FDA keep us safe?

Research into new medications is how we learn if they work and if they’re safe.  It’s the only protection we have against snake oil and worse.  But disasters like Thalidomide and Vioxx – not to mention the dozens of products recalled monthly – remind us that the FDA screws up every now and then.

That’s because drug companies often pretty much lie to get their drugs approved.  Here’s how.

1) Report results that didn’t happen

Amazingly enough, some drug companies take studies that show their product doesn’t work, and they report that it does!  This has happened at least 11 times with studies into antidepressants.

Another form of this is to write a conclusion that’s different from what the actual results show.  Because of time pressure, doctors don’t have time to actually read all the papers thrown at them, and often just read the abstract, which contains the pro-drug message like:  “Conclusion:  Fake drug has been shown to be safe and efficacious in treating extreme bladder discomfort.”

2) Use faulty statistics

There’s a reason Benjamin Disraeli said “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”  The sheer amount of ways to manipulate the data from studies by statistics is mind-boggling.  The simplest is to report that something is statistically significant when that doesn’t mean anything.

For instance, a drug can have a statistically significant effect on blood pressure – but that effect is tiny and meaningless.

3) Use inappropriate measuring systems

Some things are easy to measure, like someone’s height or weight.  Others, like mental states and attitudes, are a lot harder.  Psychological assessments range from solid to extremely shaky, like the infamous Rorschach blotch test.

Thank God no drug has been approved because of results of a Rorschach blotch test.  But drug companies always use the measuring system that puts their drug in the best light, even if it doesn’t mean it actually works.

4) Don’t use placebo

When you don’t test your treatment against placebo, absurd things happen.  Like the gastric freezing procedure to treat ulcers, which consists of putting a balloon full of frozen liquid into the stomach to cool it off.  It worked great – until it was tested against a placebo, or a fake treatment.

Guess what?  The placebo worked better.

5) Don’t test against other drugs

You’d have to be crazy to forget about testing against a placebo.  But what drug companies almost never do is test their drugs against other drugs that already exist.

Vyvanse, for instance, is a new medication for ADHD that is chemically identical to Dexedrine.  It’s a hell of a lot more expensive, so there’s no way that it’s ever going to be tested if it’s actually better to the treatment that already existed.

6) Ignore the FDA

This is by the far the stupidest thing a drug company can do.  You’d have to be crazy to ignore what the FDA tells you to do in testing your medication.  But that’s exactly what Sam Waksal did with the breakthrough cancer drug Erbitux.

They told him to conduct certain studies and change some of his protocols.  He didn’t.  The worst part is, Erbitux was a drug that could help treat cancer in some of the worst cases.  Then Sam was surprised when his drug was rejected!

7) Pressure patients to give the results you want

If you give patients a test at the start of the trial, like a mood inventory scale, and then again at the end of the trial, they won’t answer the same.  Their past experience biases how they respond the second time around.

Also, you can subtly pressure participants to give results you want by leading questions.

8)  Test it for short periods of time

Take a drug that needs to be taken for months if not years, like an anti-depressant.  Why not just test it for a few weeks?  Not only will you save money, you won’t have to learn about the nasty side effects caused by long term use.

Everyone wins, except the patients.

9) Test it on a few people

Who cares if your drug will be taken by millions?  Test it on only several hundred people.  That makes it even easier for you to run the test again if you are so unlucky as to get bad results.

10) Test it on people who’re different

Test your drug on people who are healthier than those who will eventually take it.  You’re almost guaranteed better results.

Prozac, for instance, while now used for dozens of reasons including pain management, was initially tested on mild-to-moderately depressed people – not people who were extremely depressed.  Stuff like that explains why antidepressants don’t work nearly as well as they’re supposed to.

You Might Like:

Eat Simpler, Be Healthier

50 Ways to Make Friends

Do you trust the drug companies?  Why or why not?

controversial

Do Antidepressants Work as Promised?

Thursday, July 30th, 2009
test

Note: This is an editorial

Antidepressants – what’s going on?

One out of ten Americans are currently on antidepressants.  That’s just the beginning.  More than 25% of college students at some schools are on them.

Everyone is being given them for all sorts of reasons.  Are they really that effective or safe?  Maybe.  That said, there is a horrible secret.

We don’t know how antidepressants work.  We don’t know if they are safe for long term use.  And finally, we don’t know how well they work, and for what reasons they should be prescribed.

There’s too much money at risk for the big drug companies to bother to answer these questions.

After all, antidepressants are ideal money-makers, $80 billion annually.  They have to be taken daily for months if not years, and it can be impossible to tell if they’re working.  And they have serious side effects, like possibly doubling your risk of committing suicide.

Flawed studies

Everything we know about antidepressants comes from medical studies.  But the studies are really screwed up.

First, who runs the studies?  The drug companies.  What do they have at stake?

Good results mean that they make hundreds of millions of dollars.  Bad results mean they’ve wasted years of research and development.  What do you think happens?

Positive results in the studies are inflated on average 32%.  One analysis of 74 trials covering 12,500 patients showed that 36 studies gave negative results – and a shocking 11 of those were reported as being positive!  And if the negative studies can’t be spun positive, then we simply don’t hear about them.

Studies on antidepressant safety and efficacy are 94% positive – but if negative studies were published, they’d only be 51% positive.  The difference between what we hear and what is actually going is especially big for new drugs like Remeron.

The less time spent testing the drug means the less chance of picking up annoying side effects and saves operating costs.  Because of that, most studies don’t track long term use, and some studies last only a month.

That’s right.  Despite antidepressants being taken for months if not years, most research into them only goes on for a month or two, ignoring long term risks.

Extremely limited research

Millions of people take antidepressants.  By contrast, the studies which confirm their efficacy and safety study at most a thousand patients.

The initial studies for Prozac that approved its use had only a few hundred patients complete the study.

Some quick math.  30 million people have taken Prozac.  Now imagine there’s a serious side effect that occurs in 1/10,000 of the people who use it, and was missed in the initial studies.  That’s 3,000 people.

Antidepressants aren’t benign drugs, far from it.  They can cause thoughts of suicide in up to 4% of children, anger and violence in adults, alongside more mundane issues like nausea, restlessness and sexual dysfunction.

The Serotonin Hypothesis – a myth?

We don’t know how the medications work.  The Serotonin Hypothesis – that reduced levels of serotonin in the brain cause depression – is inaccurate and lacks scientific basis.

Lowering the level of serotonin in the brain doesn’t cause depression.  Increasing its levels directly doesn’t do much, either.  And if low levels of serotonin were to blame for depression, antidepressants wouldn’t take several weeks to work – they would work within days because that’s how fast they raise levels.

To cap it off, antidepressants that don’t target serotonin – like Wellbutrin – work at about the same rate as those that do.  Clearly the serotonin hypothesis is a vast over simplification that’s convenient for the drug companies.

Use in bipolar?

Antidepressants are very heavily used in patients with bipolar disorder.  Unfortunately, the data seems to be at best only moderately in support of such use, and there are no antidepressants approved for use in Bipolar (July 2008).

The STEP-BD, Systemic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder, a study run by the National Institute of Mental Health, seems to show that antidepressants are only as effective as placebo for bipolar depression.

And while antidepressants aren’t much better than placebo for bipolar patients, they may exacerbate mood cycling.

Use for depression

A similar major study of antidepressant efficacy for regular depression, STAR*D, showed similarly lackluster results.

STAR*D’s data is open to interpretation, but at the least indicates that antidepressants are not as effective as thought.  About only 50% of patients experienced improvement initially, and over a year span efficacy was only about 25%.

For the vast majority of uses, antidepressants may work only as well as placebo, or a sugar pill.  Placebos, after all, show about the same 25% efficacy.  Due to the psychological nature of depression, the placebo effect absolutely must be monitored for.

Conclusion

Antidepressants do help some people, and do save lives.  A black-box warning in 2003 which sharply reduced their use may be linked to a significant increase in teen suicides.

But they are also huge money makers with highly inflated efficacy rates, and should not be as heavily prescribed as they are.  In many populations, they are no more effective than placebo, but unlike placebo have significant side effects.

Their use in Bipolar patients should be carefully examined.

You might like:

10 Ideas for Treatment Resistant Depression

Agomelatine: A New Treatment for Depression

50 Ways to Make Friends

Sources:

Why antidepressants are not antidepressants: STEP-BD, STAR*D, and the return of neurotic depression
Effectiveness of antidepressants: an evidence myth constructed from a thousand randomized trials?
Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature
The Shocking Truth – Boston Magazine

depression, medication