Selective Drug Reporting: SSRI’s | Arthritis Information

Share
 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080116. wphar ma17/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/?cid=al_gam_nlet ter_n ewsUp

Antidepressants don't work as well as reported, study says

New England Journal of Medicine reports that 88 per cent of clinical trials that showed the drugs didn't work either weren't published in medical journals or were presented as positive findings

ANNE MCILROY
Globe and Mail Update
January 16, 2008 at 6:59 PM EST

Antidepressants are far less effective than doctors have been led to
believe, a new study has found.

That's because 88 per cent of clinical trials that showed the drugs didn't work either weren't published in medical journals or were presented as positive findings, says the study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

It provides the first hard data on a practice known as selective reporting, in which the good news about a drug is made public but the bad news isn't. Ethicists say it gives doctors and patients too rosy a picture. Clinicians rely on the medical literature to learn about new drugs and to help them assess whether it is worth prescribing a medication, given the risk of side effects.


Please see the url provided at the top for the rest of this articleGimpy-a-gogo39464.5986574074

I can't get your link to do anything. It's just a blank page that says "done" However, I'm at work so that might be the cause (wouldn't be the first time)

 

I'm desperate to read it though. I'm on Lexapro, and starting to wonder about it's effectiveness. I know it was working WONDERFULLY for me at one point, but it seems to be "wearing off" so to speak. I'm honestly afraid of trying anything else, but I just can't control these panic attacks alone.

Did the article list any specific drugs?

Okay, I'm on my desk top now. Here's the link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080116. wpharma1701/
BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/?cid=al_gam_nletter_newsUp

Thanks :)

 

So they work, just not like we've been lead to believe. So perhaps that is why I'm seeing less and less help in my panic attacks. I suppose, to some, I'd be that "borderline". I'm not psycho, and I can live my day to day life with the attacks. I just don't want to. It makes me ill. So to *ME* I CAN'T live my life with them.

Hm. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

Well, I think if they didn't work at all people would have noticed! (One would hope, anyway). To me the article is interesting because of what it exposes about selective reporting, and how having the pharmaceutical company doing the safety and effectiveness testing doesn't really work out. It's upsetting because it robs the doctor and consumer of the chance to make an informed decision.

"..it robs the doctor and consumer of the chance to make an informed decision."

 

No kidding!!! Maybe I would have chose a different path for my attacks. Probably not, but what if this was something like MTX???? That'd be a HUGE deal to A LOT of people.

My husband had a long conversation with guy who does clinical research.  He was on a speaking tour, lecturing pharm cos. to get out of trials at the first signs of trouble, before they are so financially invested there is no turning back.  

Panic attacks are a huge deal to a lot of people.

 

This is not unique to pharmaceutical research.  In college I was part of an organic chemistry research team.  We were studying compounds that had potential use in high-speed communications devices. There were several times when we were researching a particular compound or series of compounds, and if it eventually turned out to be a dead end, we did not publish a paper on it.  All the research groups operate this way.  Thing is, the scientific community can learn just as much from the failures as they can from the successes.

When I worked at a big pharma, I was in charge of the corporate chemical databases.  We had a reaction database also, and we tried to get the scientists to register ALL of their reactions in it, not just the ones that proved useful.  This way, other groups could potentially see what didn't work, instead of trying to "reinvent the wheel" so-to-speak.  Well, it just didn't happen.  Some didn't see the point; others didn't want to take the time to enter all the information; and others, I'm sure, didn't want people to see their failures.

I'm not saying they aren't, sorry. I guess that came out wrong.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of, -- gosh, what if they were talking about a drug with tons and tons of bad side effects, but people take it because the "supposed" pros are so much better .... and now they find out they AREN'T. Like icky MTX. KWIM?

 

Panic attacks ARE a big deal! Lookit me! LOL

 

I just word things badly. (SEE?????)

[QUOTE=Suzanne]My husband had a long conversation with guy who does clinical research.  He was on a speaking tour, lecturing pharm cos. to get out of trials at the first signs of trouble, before they are so financially invested there is no turning back.   [/QUOTE]

Yep... no sense throwing money down the toilet!

Other times, a compound might make it through safety trials, only to find out it doesn't yield the desired clinical results once they get to therapeutic trials.  Often in these cases, they will continue to study the compound to see if it has any other usefulness.

Viagra comes to mind... originally developed as some sort of cardiovascular drug, but they ended up finding out it had other far more lucrative side effects.
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com