NESAN – The Neurodiversity Self-Advocacy Network
A Project of Neurodiversity International (NDI)
|
Accessibility | Home | ND-TV | News | About | APANA | Health and Social Care | Events | Contact | Nutrition and Behaviour | Campaigns | DAN | Disability Hate Crimes | Services and Training | Support | Inclusive Living and Education | Links | Site Map | Translate | ARMUK | DISCLAIMER |
|
NESAN – The Neurodiversity Self-Advocacy Network A Project of Neurodiversity International (NDI) |
|
|
APANA 2 |
|
|
TeenScreen
on Video - It's Controversial and Unscientific Standby as newspapers in more states pound the proliferation
of antipsychotics on children. See new Atypical
Antipsychotics blog here
Tarnished View of Wonder Drugs By Karl Stark, Philadelphia Inquirer, 17 Feb 08. CHIP
ELLIS / For The Inquirer Tammy
Wandling of West Virginia hired legal counsel in Philadelphia after son
Austin developed a growth in his breast while taking Risperdal for
autism. SARAH
J. GLOVER / Inquirer Staff Photographer John
Huff of Pleasantville, N.J., required surgery to remove the female-size
breasts he developed at 14 while on Risperdal. SARAH
J. GLOVER / Inquirer Staff Photographer
John
Huff, 17, of Pleasantville, N.J., took the antipsychotic Risperdal for
seven years for behavioral problems. "He would ask me 'Am I a
girl?' said his mother, Nicola. A spokeswoman for Risperdal's maker,
Janssen, said the side effect was rare. When they were first introduced in the early
1990s, new antipsychotic medications for severe mental illness were seen
as wonder drugs that were safer and more effective than their
predecessors. Sales soared as doctors tried them on new
conditions, including dementia, aggression and other behavioral
problems. Children and the elderly were among the biggest users. But now, several studies questioning some of the
drugs' benefits have led many doctors to talk of using them for shorter
periods and with tighter monitoring, because of side effects that
include sedation, obesity and diabetes. "You can't just pop someone on it and see
them in a year," said Jason Karlawish, a geriatric psychiatrist at
the University of Pennsylvania. These drugs, known as atypical antipsychotics,
offer a contentious case study of a common pattern in pharmaceuticals.
New drugs are typically approved for narrow uses and get tried off-label
on conditions that are difficult to treat. Companies' sales efforts
stoke up overall use until the research catches up years later, dulling
the early enthusiasm. While some patients are helped, lawsuits are also
a common legacy. The atypicals were originally approved for severe
mental illness - schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - which had limited
markets. But under a determined marketing effort
portraying them as safer and more effective than their predecessors, the
atypicals came to be tried beyond their approved uses for nursing-home
residents, prisoners, and children younger than 6 years old. Total U.S. sales for the class reached $13
billion in 2007, doubling sales of 2002, according to IMS Health Inc., a
pharmaceutical-information firm. Atypicals carry such names as Risperdal,
made by Janssen Pharmaceutica, part of Johnson & Johnson; Zyprexa
from Eli Lilly & Co.; Seroquel by AstraZeneca P.L.C.; Geodon by
Pfizer Inc.; and Abilify by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. All over the country, state officials are
discovering that atypicals have become the largest drug class in
Medicaid, the health program for the poor. And many state officials
question whether that reflects overzealous marketing or real need.
Several states, including Pennsylvania, are suing some drugmakers for
allegedly promoting the drugs beyond approved uses and commissioning
"ghost-written" articles to stoke use of the drugs. The drugmakers reject the suits' claims and are
obtaining new approvals from the Food and Drug Administration to treat
more conditions. In the last two years, Janssen's Risperdal got approval
to treat schizophrenia in adolescents and the irritability of autism in
ages 5 to 16. Atypicals remain a cornerstone of care for
serious mental illness. Ellen
Sholevar, director of child and adolescent
psychiatry at the Temple University School of Medicine, said atypicals
could help children even though they had not been well-studied.
Antipsychotics are used when young children appear to be out of control
and represent a danger to themselves or others, or have "very
severe disorders where there is no other viable treatment option,"
she said. Naas Siddiqui, 25, of West Philadelphia, said
that antipsychotics eased her manic symptoms and helped her graduate
from Yale University in 2007. While Zyprexa made her lethargic and gain weight,
she said, Abilify calmed her. She gets her blood tested every six months
and sees a physician more frequently. "I don't want to stay on it permanently. But
I think it's helped me significantly," she said. A different view of the drugs came from Nicola
Huff of Pleasantville, N.J., whose son, John Aaron, took Risperdal for
seven years to resolve his behavioral problems.
But at age 14, he developed a well-known drug
side effect: female-size breasts that had to be surgically removed.
He would ask me 'Am I a girl?' And I would
tell him 'no,' " Nicola Huff said. Tammy
Wandling, whose son Austin has autism, said
a psychiatrist put him on Risperdal at age 4. In less than nine months,
Austin developed a baseball-size growth in his right breast. "I couldn't believe how big it was,"
said his mother, who lives near Charleston, W.Va. Research suggests Risperdal, like the older
antipsychotics, can cause an increase in the hormone prolactin, which
directs breasts to enlarge and make milk. Risperdal's label warns about
the possibility. The experience helped drive both women to hire
Steve Sheller and James J. Pepper, both Philadelphia lawyers. "They're being given an easy out with a
pill. But the easy out may create a much more serious problem,"
Sheller said. A spokeswoman for Risperdal's maker, Janssen,
rejected the claims and said the side effect was rare. Experts say the condition can be avoided by close
monitoring or by switching to another antipsychotic.
The drugmakers still face vast legal threats.
Zyprexa-maker Lilly has set aside $1.2 billion to
settle 31,000 claims, mostly about whether the firm failed to warn
patients of diabetes in package inserts before 2003. Lilly still faces 1,200 cases as well as a
federal probe over its marketing of Zyprexa. Much litigation has focused on how doctors have
prescribed antipsychotics beyond their approved use. Doctors may
prescribe off-label, and have done so for dementia, attention deficit,
aggression, autism and post-traumatic stress disorder. But firms are not allowed to promote off-label
uses. Bristol-Myers Squibb, maker of Abilify, agreed
last year to pay $515 million in part to settle allegations that it
improperly promoted the antipsychotic for off-label uses. The firms also face thousands of additional
claims. AstraZeneca, for example, said it had 8,000 suits pending for
Seroquel. It was not always that way. The first
antipsychotics, including Thorazine, helped free many people from state
hospitals. But that generation came with severe side effects, including
the involuntary and debilitating movements called tardive dyskinesia.
The second generation, dubbed atypicals, began
appearing in the 1990s. They are thought to cause fewer involuntary
movements and other severe effects. But they are more likely to cause
weight gain and diabetes, said Tom Clark, director of clinical affairs
for the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists Foundation. There's more awareness of the risks of
these drugs," Clark added. "There's a tendency to more
caution." Amy
Brodkey, a Philadelphia psychiatrist, agreed,
saying she and her colleagues use antipsychotics, with more monitoring.
"Everybody is thinking about it a lot more," she said. Some of the dramatic sales growth has come in
nursing homes, where the drugs are used to combat the delusions and
aggressiveness that often accompany dementia. Such behavior is one of the thorniest problems in
geriatrics and often becomes the tipping point that sends patients into
nursing homes. More than 26 percent of the nation's nursing-home
residents were on antipsychotics in early 2007. That compares with 19.4
percent in 1999, federal surveys show. U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) has asked
the government to review how antipsychotic drugs are being used
off-label in nursing homes, and whether residents are being sedated
unnecessarily. Those drugs do little to help dementia patients,
said Lon S. Schneider, a California psychiatrist and lead investigator
of the CATIE-AD study of outpatients with Alzheimer's. He and his
colleagues found that patients on antipsychotics for 12 weeks had a
slightly greater risk of dying sooner than those on placebo. While actual deaths were rare, physicians should
monitor the drugs more closely and stop them when they do not seem to
help, he said. Antipsychotic use also has exploded in young
people. Doctor visits with antipsychotic prescriptions became six times
more common from 1993 to 2002 in people 20 and younger, according to a
study led by Columbia University psychiatrist Mark Olfson. "I've seen the growth of these agents for
several years," added Mark Helm, a pediatrician in Arkansas, where
the state attorney general is also suing a maker of an antipsychotic
drug. In Pennsylvania, Medicaid in 2006 paid for
atypicals for at least 824 children under the age of 6, said Terri
Cathers, director of pharmacy for Medicaid. Both Pennsylvania and New
Jersey have hired a firm, Comprehensive NeuroScience Inc., to identify
unusual prescriptions and send doctors letters about the use.
We want to make sure all other avenues are
exhausted before they resort to putting children on these drugs,"
Cathers said.
State
of Florida reviewing their policy on antipsychotic drugs for
kids
Pharmalot article
on Florida review Jan 28 2008 Now the New York Attorney General's office is planning to look
into this:
"Claims are paid without question based on a doctor's judgment that the drug is "medically necessary," even when it's not approved for kids, Medicaid officials said. But they added that
the state plans to look closer at how and why some drugs are
prescribed."
MEDICAID
KIDS IN PSYCH-RX $URGE By SUSAN EDELMAN and MELISSA KLEIN,
Feb 03 2008 February 3, 2008 -- New York state's
Medicaid program paid $82.8 million in 2006 for two dozen psychiatric
drugs for tens of thousands of children - with many of the meds not
FDA-approved for kids, records obtained by The Post show. Use of the powerful antipsychotics,
anticonvulsants and antidepressants once prescribed only for adults has
skyrocketed as more New York kids are diagnosed with mental illnesses
and behavioral disorders. But experts fear some children may be
misdiagnosed, overmedicated and at risk for horrendous side effects such
as diabetes, breast growth in boys and suicidal tendencies. Most of the
drugs have not been thoroughly tested or studied on kids. The
psychiatric drugs are generally used - and can be effective - in
treatment of schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, autism,
attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, aggression and other behavior
problems. But state Health Department officials
say they do not know what illnesses the children in the Medicaid program
are suffering. "Pharmacy claims do not require a
diagnosis," a state Health Department spokeswoman said. Claims are paid without question based
on a doctor's judgment that the drug is "medically necessary,"
even when it's not approved for kids, Medicaid officials said. But they
added that the state plans to look closer at how and why some drugs are
prescribed. The lucrative sale of the drugs also
has drawn scrutiny from law-enforcement authorities in New York and
other states. Several states are investigating whether pharmaceutical
companies are illegally promoting the drugs to doctors "off
label" - for uses not FDA approved. Eli Lilly & Co. said last week it
was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in Pennsylvania seeking documents
on the marketing of its best-selling antipsychotic, Zyprexa, which was
prescribed to 2,647 New York Medicaid kids in 2006. Connecticut's
attorney general has joined the probe. John Milgrim, a spokesman for state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo,
would not comment on the Zyprexa case, but told The Post: "We
currently have open investigations regarding this kind of conduct.
Marketing of pharmaceuticals for off-label usage may be a fraud on the
state Medicaid program." Risperdal was given to 17,393 New York Medicaid kids in 2006,
making it the most heavily prescribed psychiatric drug in the program.
It was recently approved by the FDA to treat autism but is also often
prescribed for bipolar disorder in kids. It's blamed in lawsuits
nationwide for side effects including diabetes caused by weight gain,
Parkinson's-like movement disorders and gynecomastia, in which males
grow breasts. Stephen Sheller, a Philadelphia lawyer, said he has filed suits in
New Jersey on behalf of four boys, ages 14 to 16 - two who underwent
mastectomies. "You blitz the kids, and they're under control," Sheller
said, noting that the drugs often cause drowsiness. "They're out of
it." Dr. Mark Olfson, a psychiatry professor at Columbia University
Medical Center, led a study published in September that found outpatient
treatment of kids for bipolar disorder rose 40-fold from 1994 to 2003.
Doctors frequently prescribed the kids mood stabilizers, antipsychotics
and antidepressants. The study found an "urgent need" to
evaluate the drugs safety and effectiveness. Olfson said Friday that many kids need help. "The much
greater problem is that we have large numbers of young people in the
United States with mental-health problems who receive no
treatment," he said. Medicaid's 2006 expenditure of $82 million on psychiatric drugs
for children was up $8 million from the previous year and $15 million
from 2004. In all, Medicaid counted more than 85,000 child recipients of
psychiatric drugs in 2006 but said that number duplicates kids who got
two or more drugs.
UK Children with Learning Disabilities to be Screened for Mental Health If anyone is having a problem with mental screening in the UK
it is highly recommended you contact Joanna Moncrieff of the Critical
Psychiatry Network. You can hear Joanna Moncrieff speak eloquently against
TeenScreen.here on
BBC radio here.
Florida Agency to Review Antipsychotic Drug Policy for Kids By M.C. MOEWE The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration
plans to create a subcommittee to review its guidelines on payments for
medications after questions were raised about antipsychotics being
prescribed for children in the state's insurance program for the poor. Medicaid will pay for a drug only if it is
"medically necessary and prescribed for medically accepted
indications," according to the agency's current guidelines. The Daytona Beach News-Journal reported earlier
this month that the number of Florida Medicaid children prescribed
antipsychotics had nearly doubled -- from 9,364 seven years ago to
18,137 in 2006. Among those children, the most common primary diagnosis
was attention deficit hyperactivity disorder -- an ailment not approved
for treatment with antipsychotics by the Food and Drug Administration. "The science of pharmacology has seen
significant advances and we are revisiting this rule to see if it needs
to be updated," said Fernando Senra, press secretary for the
agency. "Federal law provides each state with the authority to
cover medications that doctors prescribe for off-label purposes." David
Stallard, an assistant attorney general in
Utah, said he believes the Federal Medicaid statute is clear that a drug
not used for "medically accepted indications" is excluded from
coverage if states want matching federal funds. He has broached the subject with the agency that
runs Utah's Medicaid program but has met strong opposition. I get the impression that they are under so
much pressure from the doctors that they basically cave," Stallard
said. "They say 'this is our most vulnerable population and we
should protect access.' I turn that around and say this is our most
vulnerable population and we should not experiment on them." Currently, Utah is suing Eli Lilly after
preliminary results indicate about a quarter of the state's Medicaid
adults taking the antipsychotic Zyprexa developed diabetes, he said. Florida Agency for Health Care Secretary Dr.
Andrew Agwunobi requested creating a work group, under the Medical Care
Advisory Committee, that will bring together experts in the field to
determine whether changes to our current policies are appropriate, Senra
said. The group's findings will be presented to the Pharmaceutical and
Therapeutic Committee in March for review and recommendations.
The committee includes physicians, Medicaid
recipients, and government department heads, Senra said. In 2005 the Agency for Health Care paid $3
million for a study on the use of antipsychotics among Medicaid
children. The contract with Dr. Robert Constantine with the Medicaid
Drug Therapy Management Program for Behavioral Health at the University
of South Florida also called for a panel of experts that developed
guidelines for prescribing antipsychotics to children. Agency officials reviewed and accepted those
prescribing guidelines, which included the recommendation that
antipsychotics should not be used primarily to target ADHD, Constantine
said. Nor should antipsychotics be given to children under age 6 except
under the most extraordinary circumstances. That the agency is now looking at updating the
guidelines on paying for medications after accepting the new prescribing
guidelines seems appropriate, Constantine said.
For example, they might consider under what
circumstances should there be a special prior authorization,"
Constantine said. "They would really be looking at how their
internal policies deal with prescribers." Constantine's organization also monitors Florida
Medicaid doctors prescribing antipsychotics, he said. Those with
questionable prescribing patterns are sent letters and sometimes called
and asked about the prescriptions they write. Eli
Lilly settles 900 more claims over Antipsychotic Zyprexa (MindFreedom)
Indianapolis Star, June 2007 INDIANAPOLIS -- Eli Lilly and Co. has settled another 900
personal-injury claims against its antipsychotic drug Zyprexa,
including five set to go to court next month, thus avoiding what would
have been the first trial in the U.S. The Indianapolis drug maker
confirmed the settlement Wednesday but declined to reveal the amount.
With the latest agreements, Lilly has settled more than 25,000 claims,
leaving about 1,100 unsettled. Many of the plaintiffs have claimed Lilly
underplayed the drug's side effects, including weight gain and elevated
blood sugar. Lilly has set aside $1.2 billion to pay claims. More on Zyprexa below... Video
of St. Petersburg Times on Zyprexa Zyprexa
in court, St. Petersburg Times, Dec 2007 In two years, Eli Lilly has
paid $1.2-billion to 30,000 people most of
whom claim Zyprexa caused them to develop diabetes. Hundreds more cases
are pending. State claims: Nine states have sued Eli Lilly claiming the
company promoted Zyprexa for off-label uses and downplayed its risks.
Each state wants to be reimbursed hundreds
of millions of dollars in
Medicaid dollars paid for Zyprexa. Florida has not sued and won't comment, though Eli Lilly has
said that it received a subpoena in 2005 from the state's Medicaid Fraud
Control Unit, seeking documents related to the sales, marketing and
promotional practices of Zyprexa. Daytona Beach - News Journal "Our office is aware of concerns with
antipsychotics in Florida's Medicaid program but we cannot acknowledge
nor provide any information pertaining to ongoing criminal
investigations," said Sandi Copes, a spokeswoman with the Florida
Attorney General's office. Florida Medicaid records show the
number of children -- some just months old -- who were prescribed the
drugs went from 9,364 seven years ago to 18,137 in 2006. No records for
privately insured patients are available. "The situation is
out of control," said David Cohen, a professor at Florida
International University who has been studying the use of antipsychotics
since 1983. While no long-term studies have been done on the effects the
drugs have on children, there is evidence children on the drugs face
greater risks of diabetes, hyperglycemia and extreme weight gain, Cohen
said. Parent, Richard Davis, said he watched in horror as his
daughter Ciara, then 6, gained 40 pounds, developed breasts and had
uncontrollable tongue and facial movements. "Those drugs were
killing her," Davis said. Over his objections, he said Ciara was
given antipsychotics by her mother and while in foster care. A
court-appointed guardian also noted the effects in an August 2003
report, describing a visit in which Ciara "never once kept her
tongue in her mouth." Ciara, now 11, was taken off the drugs
after about a year, her father said, and she quickly dropped the added
weight. Prescriptions of anti-psychotics troubling January 16, 2008 ... And a state struggling to keep up with rapid
changes that have pushed Medicaid costs for powerful anti-psychotic
drugs from $9 million seven years ago to almost $30 million in 2006.
Something doesn't add up. Do all these children need the drugs they're
being prescribed? ... the trend is disturbing. Other
states are already pushing hard for answers, and Florida should join in.
The drugs in question are known as atypical anti-psychotics and include
Risperdal, Abilify, Geodon and Seroquel ... Twenty-six states are
exploring legal action against drug companies for unfair trade practices
or consumer-protection violations (Florida is one of them; the Attorney
General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit served drug manufacturer Eli Lilly
with a request in 2005 for information regarding its marketing of the
drug Zyprexa.) Other states are being more aggressive; several have
actually filed suit seeking to reclaim some of the millions spent on
these drugs. PsychSearch.net Antipsychotics, Florida Medicaid Rules - link? TeenScreen Lawsuit and No Child Left Undrugged All
documents filed in the TeenScreen lawsuit. The last entry is from Teresa Rhoades' attorney (plaintiff)
asking for a trial by jury "to be held as soon as is
expeditiously available on the Court’s calendar" The Rutherford Institute filed the lawsuit in federal
court in Indiana on behalf of the Rhoades' family whose
15-year-old daughter, Chelsea Rhoades, was subjected to a mental health
screening examination at her school without her parents’ knowledge or
consent and then was diagnosed with two mental "disorders". Institute
attorneys charge that school officials violated Michael and Teresa
Rhoades’ constitutional right, as parents, to control the care,
custody and upbringing of their daughter when Chelsea was subjected to TeenScreen withouth their
knowledge or consent. No
Child Left Undrugged,John Whitehead, Rutherford
Institute According to autopsy reports, 4-year-old Rebecca Riley died
from an overdose of psychiatric drugs. At age 2, Rebecca was diagnosed
with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). At 3, she was
diagnosed with bipolar disorder, also known as manic depression. By the
time she died on Dec. 13, 2006, little Rebecca was taking Clonidine, as
well as the anti-convulsant Depakote and the anti-psychotic Seroquel. What were some of the symptoms that prompted such treatment
plans? As her mother described it, Rebecca was “constantly getting
into things, running around, not being able to settle down.”
Rebecca’s diagnosis was not a medical aberration. Her 10-year-old
brother and 4-year-old sister were already being treated for manic
depression. Indeed, nearly one million children are reportedly diagnosed
as bipolar, making it more common than autism and diabetes combined.
From 1994 to 2003, the number of children treated for bipolar disorder
increased 40 percent, a jump that many experts attribute to more doctors
aggressively applying the diagnosis.
An increasing number of medical officials are voicing the concern that
children are being misdiagnosed. Dr. John McClellan, who runs a
children’s psychiatric hospital in the state of Washington, suggested
that the bipolar diagnosis has become a catch-all for aggressive and
troubled children.
Likewise, child psychiatrist John Holttum believes that the definition
of bipolar disorder is expanding. Whereas children who were seen as
troubled or irritable 10 or 15 years ago might have been treated with
counseling, parental training for their caregivers or other social
interventions, children with similar symptoms today are being diagnosed
as bipolar and treated with medication. Unfortunately, for many
families, therapy is not even an option. According to Dr. Michael Brody,
a child psychiatrist at the University of Maryland, since insurance
companies often do not support therapy, most parents opt for medication.
Not surprisingly, the pharmaceutical companies are reaping the rewards,
aided by the medical community and the media. Bipolar disorder
medication is typically three to five times more expensive than
medications prescribed for other disorders, such as depression or
anxiety. As the News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash., points out,
“Furthering the trend is extensive marketing of atypical
anti-psychotics by the companies that make them, and media coverage of
bipolar disorder as a childhood disease.”
Yet many of the anti-psychotic drugs being prescribed for children have
not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use on them.
Of the two that have been approved for children, Risperdahl and Abilify,
they’ve only been approved for short-term use. Nevertheless, as the News
Tribune points out, because these drugs have been approved for adults,
“doctors are free to prescribe drugs to anyone and in any way they see
fit once they have been approved for some purpose.”
What this means is that in addition to being misdiagnosed, there is an
increased likelihood that children are also being overdrugged. Concern
about this scenario has prompted Dr. Jeffrey Thompson, chief medical
officer for the Washington state Medicaid program, to provide more
stringent guidelines to ensure that anti-psychotic drugs are prescribed
to Medicaid children only when truly needed and at proper dosages.
While Thompson’s actions signal a move in the right direction, at
least for minor-aged Medicaid recipients in his state, it will do little
to help children in private care and in other states.
When confronted with the numbers of children being diagnosed with
bipolar disorder—about 800,000 in 2003, and likely much higher
now—it is hard to know how to respond. Could that many young people
truly be suffering from this disorder? It is tempting to lay the blame
on an over-zealous medical community or a greedy pharmaceutical
industry. There is no doubt that they have benefited financially from
the sharp rise in bipolar cases among young people.
Is it more a case of kids just being kids—noisy, rambunctious,
hyperactive, disorderly? Or is there something else going on here?
Curiously, one study released in 2007 indicated that among children
diagnosed with bipolar disorder, two-thirds of them were boys.
While there are undeniably cases where children are actually suffering
and are helped by diagnosis and medication, I have to wonder about the
majority. Little is said in the studies I have read about the impact
that family life and the environment may have on the behavior of
children diagnosed as bipolar, or even ADHD, yet they can’t be ruled
out.
Society as a whole has become irresponsible in its duty to young people.
Obsessed with materialism, we have handed over our young people to
marketing mavens and corporations eager to make a quick buck. Distracted
by entertainment, we have relinquished our children to television
babysitters, allowing them to become turned on by and tuned into
mindless television programs, video games and advertising that promote
violence and premarital sex, among other unhealthy behaviors. Children
need human touch and love. All too often, parents give them over to
others for care. They also leave them floating in the non-real world of
virtual reality.
Thus, it is little wonder that so many children are out of control,
disorderly and unable to settle down. But they shouldn’t be victimized
and punished for our neglect. Nor should they be drugged into
compliance. Our children are screaming for help, but we’re not
listening to what they’re saying. Instead, many parents are just
hoping to shut them up—whether with drugs or entertainment—and get a
little peace and quiet. But that’s not the answer.
A solution will not be found by passing another law. Rather, it must
start at home and in the community. When the family breaks down,
everything breaks down. We need to start by re-building families.
Parents need to be parents and stop over-scheduling their children. They
need to start spending time with them.
Finally, parents need to say no to drugs for their children. They need
to control what their children watch and listen to. And they need to
take off the headphones, turn off the cell phones and try communicating
with their children. Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is
founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book The
Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks) will be out in August 2008. Remarkably, the New York Times failed to reveal that William
H. Janes, the Florida director of Drug Control,
mentioned in the below article is on TeenScreen's national
advisory council whose members have major documented ties to
psychiatric drug manufacturers. And here's the evidence, TeenScreen's
Advisory Board documented ties to drug companies Legal
Drugs Kill Far More Than Illegal, Florida Says N.Y.Times, needs
login) By DAMIEN CAVE
June 14, 2008 MIAMI — From “Scarface” to “Miami Vice,”
Florida’s drug problem has been portrayed as the story of a single
narcotic: cocaine. But for Floridians, prescription drugs are
increasingly a far more lethal habit. An analysis of autopsies in 2007 released this week by the
Florida Medical Examiners Commission found that the rate of deaths
caused by prescription drugs was three times the rate of deaths caused
by all illicit drugs combined. Law enforcement officials said that the shift toward
prescription-drug abuse, which began here about eight years ago, showed
no sign of letting up and that the state must do more to control it.
“You have
health care providers involved, you have doctor shoppers, and then there
are crimes like robbing drug shipments,” said Jeff Beasley, a drug
intelligence inspector for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement,
which co-sponsored the study. “There is a multitude of ways to get
these drugs, and that’s what makes things complicated.”t" The report’s findings track with similar studies by the
federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which has found that roughly
seven million Americans are abusing prescription drugs. If accurate,
that would be an increase of 80 percent in six years and more than the
total abusing cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, Ecstasy and inhalants. The Florida report analyzed 168,900 deaths statewide.
Cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines caused 989 deaths, it found,
while legal opioids — strong painkillers in brand-name drugs like
Vicodin and OxyContin — caused 2,328. Drugs with benzodiazepine, mainly depressants like Valium and
Xanax, led to 743 deaths. Alcohol was the most commonly occurring drug,
appearing in the bodies of 4,179 of the dead and judged the cause of
death of 466 — fewer than cocaine (843) but more than methamphetamine
(25) and marijuana (0). The study also found that while the number of people who died
with heroin in their bodies increased 14 percent in 2007, to 110, deaths
related to the opioid oxycodone increased 36 percent, to 1,253. Florida scrutinizes drug-related deaths more closely than do
other states, and so there is little basis for comparison with them. It has also witnessed several highly publicized cases in
recent years that have highlighted the problem. Only last year, an
accidental prescription drug overdose killed Anna Nicole Smith in
Broward County. Still, the state has lagged in enforcement. Thirty-eight
other states have approved prescription drug monitoring programs that
track sales. Florida lawmakers have repeatedly considered similar
legislation, but privacy concerns have kept it from passing. As a result, federal, state and local law enforcement
officials say, Florida has become a source of prescription drugs that
are illegally sold across the country. “The monitoring plan is our priority effort, but that is
not enough,” William H. Janes, the Florida director of drug control,
said in a statement accompanying the study. He said Florida was also
looking at ways to curb illegal Internet sales and to encourage doctors
and pharmacists to identify potential abusers. Some local police departments have taken a more novel
approach. In Broward County on May 31, deputies completed a “drug
takeback” in which $5 Wal-Mart, CVS or Walgreens gift cards were
distributed to 150 people who cleaned out their medicine cabinets and
turned in unused drugs in an effort to keep them out of young people’s
hands. “The abuse has reached epidemic proportions,” said Lisa
McElhaney, a sergeant in the pharmaceutical drug diversion unit of the
Broward County Sheriff’s Office. “It’s just explosive.”
Researchers
find holes in antipsychotics' off-label uses
January 09 2008
Antipsychotic drugs that are used "off-label" for controlling
violent
behavior in mentally challenged patients are less effective
than placebos and dummy pills, according to a new British study.
The report flies in the face of standard practices in nursing homes
and
mental health clinics, which regularly prescribe antipsychotics
for off-label purposes, experts said.
In the study, 86 people with low IQs or other mental problems were
given
Risperdal or a generic form of Haldol (both are
antipsychotics)
or a placebo pill. After one month of study,
patients
receiving the placebo had calmed down significantly more
than
either of the groups on the anti-psychotics, researchers said.
The extra attention given to patients caused much of the calming
affect,
claims Dr. Peter J. Tyrer, a professor of psychiatry at
Imperial
College London who led the research effort.
"These people tend to get so little company normally. They're
neglected,
they tend to be pushed into the background, and this
extra
attention has a much bigger effect on them that it would on a
person
of a more normal intelligence level," Dr. Tyrer said.
But though the report concluded that the routine prescription of the
drugs
for aggression "should no longer be regarded as a satisfactory
form of care," authors also noted that their report "should
not be interpreted as an indication that antipsychotic drugs have no place
in the treatment of some aspects of behavior disturbance.
Antipsychotic
drug 'stroke risk', 28 Aug 2008 More
people than previously thought could be at higher risk of having a
stroke caused by their antipsychotic drugs, say UK scientists. Previous
research suggested only some types of the drug increased the risk,
particularly for people with dementia. However a study published
in the British Medical Journal says all forms of antipsychotics boost
the risk, in all patients. A
mental health charity said patients on the drugs must be closely
monitored. Antipsychotic
drugs are generally used to control psychotic symptoms in patients with
disorders such as schizophrenia, and some severe forms of depression. They
are also thought to be widely used to control symptoms of dementia such
as aggression, leading to accusations they were being used unnecessarily
as a "chemical cosh" in some circumstances. They
fall into two types - newer "atypical" and older
"typical" antipsychotics. When
the first concerns were raised in 2002, these focused on the
"atypical" drugs. These
worries led to a recommendation from drug safety watchdogs in the UK
that they not be given to people with dementia, and the government has
been urged to strengthen this in England in its forthcoming dementia
strategy. The
latest findings, from researchers at the London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine, confirm the fears over dementia patients, but raise
wider concerns.> They
identified 6,700 patients from a GP database, all with an average age of
80, and concluded that there was more than a tripling of risk for
dementia patients taking any sort of anti-psychotic drug. Patients
without dementia taking any sort of antipsychotic had a 40% increase in
risk. The
researchers repeated the recommendation that patients with dementia
should not be prescribed these drugs. 'Last
resort' Neil
Hunt, from the Alzheimer's Society, said that doctors now needed to heed
these warnings. The
over-prescription of antipsychotics is a serious breach of human rights,
these drugs should only be a last resort. The
forthcoming National Dementia Strategy is a crucial opportunity to stop
this dangerous over-prescribing and we look forward to its launch in the
autumn. Marjorie
Wallace, the chief executive of the mental health charity Sane, said
that while the drugs were capable of transforming lives, different
patients reacted differently to their side-effects. This
study should remind us all that antipsychotics are powerful drugs which
can both be essential for some people, while carrying other risks. This
is another warning that all antipsychotics should be prescribed with
great thought and care and be subject to rigorous follow-up. Guardian, 2 Mar 2008 The psychiatric profession is ignoring
evidence that treatment with antipsychotics can be harmful, according to
a new book, Adam James
All Adam James articles
March 2, 2008 12:00 PM
Christian was slouched in a chair in Bradford psychiatric unit. He was,
seemingly, only half-conscious, half alive. He could hardly speak, let
alone raise his head. Christian had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Two days before, in a haze of paranoia, he had punched a colleague of
mine at a day centre. So Christian was sectioned and medicated, heavily,
with neuroleptic drugs. Most people, on seeing Christian, would
have described him as being so whacked out he was a dribbling wreck. The
drug-advisory body, the National Institute of Health and Clinical
Excellence (Nice) would say the neuroleptic treatment had successfully
"calmed" Christian, in preparation for treating the
"underlying psychiatric condition.
Neuroleptics - such as Clozapine, Olanzapine, Risperidone and Seroquel -
are the "primary treatment" for psychosis, particularly
schizophrenia. Indeed, 98%-100% of people diagnosed with schizophrenia
inside our psychiatric units - and 90% living in the community - are on
neuroleptics, also called antipsychotics. Nice's guidelines for the
treatment of schizophrenia say: "There is well established evidence
for the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs.
A similar efficacy used to be claimed for Prozac and other SSRIs in the
treatment of depression. But a study published last Tuesday could well
have pulled the plug on Prozac. And now a London NHS psychiatrist,
Joanna Moncrieff, has similarly endeavoured to expose the
"myth" of antipsychotics. Whereas Moncrieff has already
highlighted antidepressant non-effectiveness, it is her research on
antipsychotics that is more shocking. The evidence shows, she says, that
antipsychotics not only do not work long-term they also cause brain
damage - a fact which is being "fatally" overlooked. Plus,
because of a cocktail of vicious side-effects, antipsychotics almost
triple a person's risk of dying prematurely. Moncrieff particularly strikes out at her own profession, psychiatry,
claiming it is ignoring the negative evidence for antipsychotics. In her
book, The Myth of The Chemical Cure, Moncrieff argues, effectively, that
psychiatry is guilty of gross scientific misconduct.
Having examined decades of clinical trials, Moncrieff's first point is
that once variables such as placebo and drug withdrawal effects are
accounted for, there is no concrete evidence for antipsychotic long-term
effectiveness. This is a radically different interpretation of the
meta-analyses and trials Nice used to arrive at its opposite conclusion.
But Moncrieff is confident her scrutiny of the evidence is valid.
At the heart of years of dissent against psychiatry through the ages has
been its use of drugs, particularly antipsychotics, to treat distress.
Do such drugs actually target any "psychiatric condition"? Or
are they chemical control - a socially-useful reduction of the paranoid,
deluded, distressed, bizarre and odd into semi-vegetative zombies?
Historically, whatever dissenters
thought has been ignored. So, it appears, have new studies which
indicate that antipsychotics do not work long-term. For example, a US
study last year in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease reported
that people diagnosed with schizophrenia and not taking antipsychotics
are more likely to recover than those on the drugs. The study was on 145
patients, and researchers reported that, after 15 years, 65% of patients
on antipsychotics were psychotic, whereas only 28% of those not on
medication were psychotic. A staggering finding, surely? So where were
the mainstream media yelps of "breakthrough in schizophrenia
treatment". Not a squeak.
Moncrieff's second point is that the psychiatric establishment,
underpinned by the pharmaceutical industry, has glossed over studies
showing that antipsychotics cause extensive damage - the most startling
being permanent brain atrophy (brain damage) or tardive dyskinesia. As
in Parkinson's Disease, patients suffer involuntary, repetitive
movements, memory loss and behaviour changes. Antipsychotics cause
atrophy within a year, Moncrieff says. She accuses her colleagues of
risking creating an "epidemic of iatrogenic brain damage". Moncrieff is a hard-nosed scientist, so
she is respectfully reserved. But gross scientific misconduct is her
accusation. "It is as if the psychiatric community can not bear to
acknowledge its own published findings," she writes. How worrying it is, then that the
Healthcare Commission should report last year that almost 40% of people
with psychosis are on levels of antipsychotics exceeding recommended
limits. Such levels cause heart attacks. Indeed, the National Patient
Safety Agency claims heart failure from antipsychotics is a likely cause
for some of the 40 average annual "unexplained" deaths of
patients on British mental health wards. Other effects of antipsychotics
include massive weight gain (metabolic impairment) and increased risk of
diabetes. Two years ago, The British Journal of
Psychiatry - Britain's most respected psychiatry journal - published a
study reporting that people on antipsychotics were 2.5 times more likely
to die prematurely. The researchers warned there was an "urgent
need" to investigate whether this was due to antipsychotics. But so
ingrained is the medication culture in mental health that many
psychiatrists feel that not medicating early with antipsychotics amounts
to negligence, Moncrieff notes. Moncrieff does acknowledge there is
evidence for the short-term effectiveness of antipsychotics. But again
Moncrieff asks psychiatry to be honest. Moncrieff points out that when
antipsychotics, such as chlorpromazine, were first used in the 1950s
they were "major tranquillisers". Why? Because that's an
accurate description of their effect, particularly short term. They
sedate, or tranquillise, the emotions, so reducing the anxiety of
paranoia and delusions. Any person on antipsychotics is likely to verify
this (go to askapatient.com). Now, however, these drugs are referred to
as "antipsychotics". For Moncrieff, this is a wheeze because
there's no evidence that antipsychotics act directly on the
"symptoms" - paranoia, delusions, hallucinations - of those
diagnosed with psychosis. There's nothing antipsychotic about
antipsychotics.
So what are the alternatives? Moncrieff - like her fellow psychiatrists
in a group called the Critical Psychiatry Network - asks services to
look seriously at non-drug approaches, such as the Soteria Network in
America. She believes psychiatrists such as herself should no longer
have unparalleled powers to forcibly detain and treat patients. Instead,
they should be "pharmaceutical advisers" engaging in
"democratic drug treatment" with patients. Psychiatrists should be involved in
"shared decision-making" with patients, and would have to go
to civil courts to argue their case for compulsory treatment.
"Psychiatry would be a more modest enterprise," writes
Moncrieff, "no longer claiming to be able to alter the underlying
course of psychological disturbance, but thereby avoiding some of the
damage associated with the untrammelled use of imaginary chemical
cures. The mental health establishment should
learn from the Prozac story and pay attention. It's about time. FOX
NEWS report by Douglas Kennedy (Nov 2008) The Fox
News report below highlights the FDA pediatric advisory panel who
chastised the FDA last week for not doing more to discourage prescribing
antipsychotic drugs for children. The
FDA ignored
the suicide, violence, and other dangers of antidepressants, and now is
doing the same thing with atypical antipsychotics. The Fox report
says that while there is no viable scientific evidence that these
products do anything beneficial for the conditions they are labeled to
treat, pediatric
use of these products have increased fivefold in recent years.
This report names Tom Laughren, director of the psychiatric products
division at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research as the
person in the FDA hierarchy as the person most culpable for this
outrage.> Laughren
told the panel that the agency could do little to fix the problem and,
instead, pointed the finger at medical specialty societies, which he
insisted must do a better job educating doctors about side effects. The
report bluntly blames drug industry greed as the cause and includes
comments from a lawyer who is representing 3 young boys who underwent
mastectomies to remove breast tissue produced by the antipsychotic
Risperdal. Alliance for Human
Research Protection and the AHRP
Blog.
Douglas Kennedy on the FDA official
who gave green light to drug children (20 Nov 2008) Mostly healthy American children are being forced to ingest
antipsychotic drugs that alter their brain chemistry, interfere with
normal development, and induce (iatrogenic) chronic diseases such as,
diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.
Below is a transcript. FROM
THE TRANSCRIPT: " Should children be prescribed pills that treat conditions
they don't even have?! How about drugs that have already killed kids
nationwide. A new warning from a federal panel is adding to the argument
over the over -- over medication of America's children. It's an issue
Fox's Douglas Kennedy has
been following quite closely. He was the first national reporter to link
anti depressant medications to adolescent suicide and violence that
prompted a lot of government action." " For years the FDA ignored the dangerous ighlight">side effects
of anti depressants. Now it seems to be doing the same thing
with anti psychotics: a group of drugs some say is seriously harming our
nation's youth. " I've gained so much weight and it's making me
depressed." " A young woman on YouTube describing what happened to her on
Risperdol. You -- hundreds of videographers complaining about this side
effects of
the new atypical anti psychotic drugs. Including inside -- Abilify and
-- well. Drugs -- missing children has increased five fold in the last
fifteen years. Despite showing little to no scientific benefit. -- The
FDA is too heavily influenced by the drug industry. -- Now an
Independent panel of doctors and psychiatrists convened by the Food and
Drug Administration itself
agrees. Criticizing the FDA for allowing the drugs to be prescribed to
children for off label you as a." " The reason they are prescribed so much is because that they
are very big profit as centers for the drug industry anytime you come
into. The doctor's office and send my kids a problem of school -- or
he's acting out, they start coming up with a diagnosis of bipolar
disorder attention deficit disorder, which are very very vague
diseases." " Stephen Keller is a lawyer in Philadelphia represent
patients damaged by anti psychotic drugs. Including these boys -- who
had to have mastectomies. -- because they group rests on Risperdol.
FDA's division of psychiatric products who many say has been turning a
blind eye to dangerous " He's been accused of major conflicts of interest, ghost-authoring
studies supporting new diagnoses can use these drugs and he is not
protecting your public health, he's protecting the drug industry's
profit. A spokesperson for the FDA said Loughran was not available for
comment though he is quoted in the New York Times claiming to be quote
puzzled by the panel's concerns but always got to do John's don't look
at some of those testimonies on YouTube and you know exactly what those
concerns are. Alright The information herein shall not be considered an endorsement of
anyone discontinuing psychiatric drugs. If you are stopping taking
medication IT IS ADVISABLE TO REDUCE DOSES GRADUALLY WITH EXTREME CAUTION, as it is difficult to predict who will
have problems withdrawing. It is worth getting as much information and
support as you can, and involving your doctor wherever possible. You
will find withdrawal information here. FOR
MORE INFORMATION ON WITHDRAWAL:: BOOK: Coming
off Psychiatric Drugs: Successful Withdrawal - from Neuroleptics,
Antidepressants, Lithium, Carbamazepine and Tranquilizers. This valuable resource comes in US, UK, Greek. and German
editions.
Briefing Paper, Do
Antipsychotic Drugs Change Brain Structure? DO ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS CHANGE BRAIN STRUCTURE? SUMMARY: Antipsychotic drugs, used to treat schizophrenia and
manic-depressive disorder (bipolar disorder), change some aspects of
brain structure, as do drugs used to treat Parkinson’s disease,
epilepsy, and other brain diseases. Some of the brain changes appear to
be related to the efficacy of the antipsychotic drugs, while other
changes are probably related to the side effects of the drugs. Studying
the brain changes may eventually lead to a better understanding of how
they work and the prediction of which individuals are most likely to
respond to which drugs and which patients are most likely to develop
side effects, include tardive dyskinesia. * * * Introduction The publication of a paper by Dr. Paul Harrison, "Review: The
Neuropathological Effects of Antipsychotic Drugs"1 has focused
attention on this area of current research. Some opponents of the use of
antipsychotic medication have misunderstood such research and have
argued that brain changes prove that antipsychotic drugs are dangerous
and should not be used. On the contrary, this research is very important
and may eventually lead to better and more effective medications. The
Stanley Foundation/NAMI Research Institute not only provides ongoing
support for Dr. Harrison (he is the Director of a Stanley International
Research Center and acknowledges the Stanley Foundation in the
above-cited paper) but also supports many of the researchers doing work
in this field, including Dr. Natalya Uranova (supported by a Stanley
International Research Center) and Drs. Francine Benes and Rosalind
Roberts (both recipients of Stanley Research Awards).
The findings that antipsychotic drugs produce structural brain changes
should not be a surprise. Schizophrenia and manic-depressive disorder
are known to produce structural brain changes as part of the disease
process, so it is reasonable to expect drugs that are effective in
treating these diseases to do likewise. Furthermore, many drugs known to
be effective in other brain disorders also produce structural brain
changes. For example, levodopa, a mainstay of treatment for
Parkinson’s disease, has been shown to produce some changes in the
cellular mitochondria and neuronal degeneration2. Phenobarbital, widely
used for many years to treat some forms of epilepsy, has been shown to
produce "lasting effects on fine structure of cells" in the
cerebellum3. And diphenylhydantoin, also commonly used to treat
epilepsy, has been shown to produce "marked dystrophic changes in
the Purkinje cell axons"4 and to interfere with the formation of
neuronal processes5. Drugs used to treat diseases of other organs of the
body (e.g., heart, joints) also may cause structural changes of those
organs. Structural Brain Changes Caused by Antipsychotic Drugs The following are the structural brain changes that appear to be caused
by antipsychotic drugs. There is considerable ongoing work in this
research area. The majority of the work to date has been carried out in
rats and needs to be replicated in humans, since there are substantial
species variation in brain structure and function.
Increased size of the striatum: An increased size of the striatum (the
striatum is composed of the caudate and putamen and is part of the basal
ganglia) has been found in human MRI studies of individuals taking some
antipsychotic drugs6 but not with clozapine. The increased size is
thought to be due both to increased blood flow and to structural changes
of the neurons. It is not known whether this increased blood flow has
any relationship to either the efficacy of the drug or its side effects.
Increased density of glial cells in the prefrontal cortex: Glial
proliferation and hypertrophy of the prefrontal cortex is reported to be
"a common response to antipsychotic drugs" and may "play
a regulatory role in adjusting neurotransmitter levels or metabolic
processes"7.
Increased number of synapses (connections between neurons) and changes
in the proportions and properties of the synapses: This includes changes
in the distribution and subtypes of synapses. The changes have been
found primarily in the caudate nucleus of the striatum, and there is
some evidence that they may also occur in layer 6 of the prefrontal
cortex but not elsewhere. The changes may be secondary to the effects of
the antipsychotic drug on dopamine or glutamate neurotransmitters. It is
not yet clear what these changes mean; they may be related to the
efficacy of the drug or may possibly be a marker for side effects. If
the latter, being able to identify such changes in living individuals
could potentially provide an early marker for tardive dyskinesia and
thus indicate which individuals should not take these drugs. Most of
these studies have been carried out in rats, so it is not yet known how
applicable the findings are to humans. Virtually all the studies have
used haloperidol (Haldol), so it is not yet known whether clozapine or
other newer antipsychotics may also produce them.
Research on other kinds of structural brain changes caused by
antipsychotic drugs has been negative to date. There is no evidence, for
example, that antipsychotic drugs cause any loss of neurons or
neurofibrillary tangles such as are found in Alzheimer’s disease. In summary, structural changes in the brain caused by antipsychotic
drugs are of major research interest since they may explain more
precisely how these drugs work and/or predict which individuals are more
likely to experience side effects. The changes caused by antipsychotic
drugs used to treat schizophrenia and manic-depressive disorder (bipolar
disorder) are similar in kind to structural brain changes caused by
drugs used to treat Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and other brain
diseases. It is incorrect to characterize these brain changes as an
indication that these drugs are dangerous or should not be used. References 1. Harrison P. Review: the neuropathological effects of antipsychotic
drugs. Schizophrenia Research 40:87-99, 1999. 3. Fishman RHB, Ornoy A, Yanai J. Correlated ultrastructural damage
between cerebellum cells after early anticonvulsant treatment in mice.
International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience 7:15–26, 1989. 4. Volk B, Kirchgässner N. Damage of Purkinje cell axons following
chronic phenytoin administration: an animal model of distal axonopathy.
Acta Neuropathologica 67:67–74, 1985.
5Bahn S, Ganter U, Bauer J, Otten U, Volk B. Influence of phenytoin on
cytoskeletal organization and cell viability of immortalized mouse
hippocampal neurons. Brain Research 615:160–169, 1993. 6. Chakos MH, Lieberman JA, Bilder RM, Borenstein M, Lerner G, Bogerts B,
Wu H, Kinon B, Ashtari M. Increase in caudate nuclei volumes of
first-episode schizophrenic patients taking antipsychotic drugs.
American Journal of Psychiatry 151:1430–1436, 1994.
7Selemon LD, Lidow MS, Goldman-Rakic PS. Increased volume and glial
density in primate prefrontal cortex associated with chronic
antipsychotic drug exposure. Biological Psychiatry 46:161–172, 1999. Effects
of .. prolactin-raising antipsychotic medication on bone mineral density Effects of long-term prolactin-raising
antipsychotic medication on bone
mineral density in patients with schizophrenia Anna Maria Meaney, MRCPsych, Beaumont
Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Shubulade Smith, MRCPsych and O. D. Howes, MRCPsych,
The Maudsley Hospital, London
Moira O'brien, Anatomy
Department, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
Robin M. Murray, FRCPsych, Division
of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Veronica O'keane, FRCPI, Division
of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Declaration of interest Work supported by an unrestricted educational research
grant from Eli-Lilly, Ireland.
Background High rates of osteoporosis in schizophrenia may result from
the prolactin-raising effects of some antipsychotic medication.
Aims To examine bone mineral density in relation to relevant endocrine
variables in patients with schizophrenia taking prolactin-
raising antipsychotics.
Method Fifty-five patients who had been receiving prolactin-raising antipsychotic
medication for >10 years underwent dual-energy X-ray
absorptiometry of their lumbar and hip bones. Among the endocrine variables
assessed were plasma prolactin and sex hormones.
Results Age-related reduced bone mineral density measures were found in
17 (57%) of the male and 8 (32%) of the female patients. Higher
doses of the female patients. Higher doses of medication were associated
with increased rates of both hyperprolactinaemia and bone
mineral density loss. Bone loss for the whole group was correlated with
medication dose, and for men was inversely correlated with
testosterone values.
Conclusions These results suggest that patients with schizophrenia on long-term
prolactin-raising antipsychotic medication are at high risk of
developing reduced bone mineral density as a consequence of
hyperprolactinaemia-induced hypogonadism.
Risperdal etc. linked to pituitary tumours Nowadays the majority of pituitary tumours (mostly benign,
but a serious condition nonetheless) are thought to be caused by
atypical antipsychotics, especially Risperdal.
Information
about the pituitary gland from the Pituitary Network Association. The
Pituitary Network Association's FAQs show how difficult it is to
diagnose problems with the pituitary gland. Could it be that
people who are prescribed drugs such as Risperdal, and then go on to
develop major pituitary problems, already had an undiagnosed malfunctioning
pituitary which was at least part of the original problem for which
Risperdal was prescribed? |
||
