The medspeak for their screwups is "adverse health events" and I am willing to bet that this suffers from massive under reporting.

"As for Novartis, makers of Clozaril, and whomever makes its generic form: you asshats killed 3,277 Americans. The doctors who prescribed these drugs are just as responsible, ethically if not legally."-Dawdy

Excuse me while I sob, and send the link to my article I wrote after reading this entry.

Thank you Philip, for writing this, everyone please pay attention. Not only has my daughter been prescribed Clozaril, it appears to help her mind, and that of 60% of a local residential care facility accord to the onsite psychiatrist who has 60% of his patients using it.

A Mother's Love:the advocacy journey, and Clozaril-Soulful Sepulcher

Your article is interesting and it is important to raise awareness to the precautions that need to be taken with these drugs.
However; the side effect related to Vioxx was heart failure and was unkown in initial trials. When discovered that this was an unpreventable and unpredictable side effect with no warning signs-the medication was pulled.
While the main side effect you are referring to with the psychotropic meds is an increased risk of suicide. There are MANY precautions and guidelines for these meds in regard to the increase in suicidal ideations. Patient education is key here.
While the possibility of an increase in suicidal thought related to these drugs is extremely important; the responsability lies also with the physicians, the patient and the families to observe closely for any increase in increased symptomatology.
I am not defending the pharmacuetical industry. However; you cannot bash these companies without realizing that there is accountability on all sides. These drugs have also SAVED millions of lives. A point you seem to have forgotten.

thanks maggie. as far as the antipsychs go, the main causes of death appear to be diabetes, pancreatitis and cardiac problems, not suicides as is more common with the anti-depressants. i'm not sure what patient education would do about pancreatitis

Point well taken in general--many of these drugs are directly dangerous. But to deal narrowly with the antidepressants for a minute, which have not been shown to cause any physiological disturbance even sort of similar to the antipsychotics: these drugs are usually prescribed to depressed people, and depressed people are at risk of suicide whether or not they are medicated.

I can't find any reporting of what the adverse events actually were (heart attack? stroke? suicide?), which would go a long way towards clearing the issue up. But let's say that most or all of the adverse events relating to the SSRIs were suicides. Then there is a correlation between the drugs and suicide. And correlation is not causation.

Why is it okay to kill psych patients but Vioxx gets pulled to protect people in physical pain? Who's protecting us?

This is not pleasant reading. However, I've determined not to get embroiled in a debate about side effects until somebody explains what the benefit of these psychotropic drugs is - "efficacy" being the first criteria, in assessment. If you think that this is a diversion, you should take a look at the way the MHRA, in the UK, squirmed, when I started quizzing it on this point:

http://itsquiteanexperience.blogspot.com/

Read back through July and August, principally. Rather than stand and argue its position, it stonewalled me. It seems pretty plain that these drugs don't work: that's the upshot, and the regulatory licensing process appears to be designed not to pick this up.

Matt

When I go to the doctor I expect my doctor to make the determine what is wrong with me. If the doctor is to write me a prescription I expect the doctor to know exactly what will happen while on the medication. This is the doctors job. This is what makes them the doctor. If I make a suggestion as to what I might feel is the better medication, because maybe I heard it has fewer side effects, I am told flat out "I'm the doctor. I know what is best for you". (In another words, "don't question me") Yes, I suppose if I had money and or insurance I could pick another doctor. One willing to educate me instead of ridiculing me. But hey, in the real world thats just not possible. So, I leave my decission making to the educated doctor, who has made it prefectly clear, he knows whats best! I leave the office educated and assured that my doctor knows best and I needn't have any concerns. There really is no reason for me to question it any further. Maybe someone can explain to me just where am I suppose to get educated about drug safety? We just learned my doctor really isn't interested in me knowing anything except how smart he is. The websites listed on the TV ads the drug company's display? Heck, their websites would surely educate me to all the deaths and other serious side effects associated with their drugs. Maybe you think I should be able to pull up the actual research done on each drug I am prescribed. Yep, could probably learn alot from those with my high school degree! But then again, since it is only a couple doctors with their names on all the research, I might get confortable in their writting styles and actually learn alot. The fact is, I pay my doctor to know what he is prescribing me . I expect the doctor to stay current on what he/she is prescribing. I expect the doctor to file and adverse effect report. I expect my doctor to encourage me and advise me to write a report. I expect my doctor to question the research. I expect my doctor to question the authors of the study, who paid for the study, the results of the study. I expect to be helped, not harmed when taking a medication and it is the doctors responsiblity to assure me that does not happen. Oh, and to tell me someone else's life was saved on the same medication that killed, caused diabetes, caused serious MI symptoms, heart disease in a love one will not resolve the abuses of the drug companies and doctors and make the drugs safer. The drug companies, researchers, prescribing doctors and the FDA all have a responsibilty in assuring my safety. Don't blame me for a lack of education, especially when there is no place to be educated. Thanks to these blogs the general public is getting assess to information that has been kept hidden.

My post pretains to the posted comment from Maggie

Jane how about this: my daughter when she was 17, researched Zyprexa diabetes on her own, took the paperwork to her psych and he told her to "take a walk" to lose weight. She FIRED him. [She had been on that drug since she was 11, and it's only because of MY research that I knew to watch for pancreatitus re: Depakote, and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome[black box warning].She didn't get pancreatitus, but DOES have Polycystic Ovary syndrome, a permanent DAMAGE that leaves a 19 yr old most likely unable to have kids and has increased cancer risk.

Educating patients is something doctors do not do. I was also told "I'm the doctor". "If your mother wanted to be a psychiatrist then she should go to school to become one." "In my 30 years experience, and I'm the doctor." ---the list goes on and on and guess what? I was right ALL of the time, per topic that had been raised. One doctor did tell me due to my SSRI information and suicidal ideation[per Zoloft in 2001 when my daughter was 13]that he was going to "re-think how I medicate patients now due to your mother's research."[he told that to my daughter.]

I WISH I didn't have to learn so much about chemistry, medications, and see adverse affects in someone I love and try and convince a doctor it was the med.

You're right, Zyprexa and Risperdal aren't just
so-called "crazy people" drugs. I was prescribed Risperdal and Seroquel (at different times) for SSRI and SNRI induced insomnia. I was being treated for recurrent major depression, not psychosis. Antipsychotics for insomnia, it's all the rage these days.

I was actually quite surprised with the numbers of reported adverse events from psych meds. It's nice to see that some doctors are reporting.

Maybe part of the problem when to it comes to reporting adverse effects with psych meds is that so many patients these days are on more than one at a time. It's probably not that easy to isolate the culprit. I was on Effexor, Wellbutrin, Lamictal, and a couple of others thrown in to the mix. Then, they take you off one and put you on another, increase this one, decrease that one. So, who knows what caused what.

I realize that taking any drug involves risk. I would, however, like to be the one to choose what risks I am willing to accept. That should always be the patient's decision. I'm not willing to risk diabetes, weight gain, and tardive dyskinesia to address problems with insomnia. If that made me a bad psych patient, sorry.

I've been treating patients who are under the watchful eyes of good psychiatrists who watch them carefully when they are on these types of medications. To me this isn't about the drugs, which usually save lives not take them, it's about the management of the patient and poor history-taking.

Maggie,
Actually it took Merck 4 years to pull Vioxx and they buried the first study that warned of problems.

therapydoc said: "...To me this isn't about the drugs, which usually save lives not take them, it's about the management of the patient and poor history-taking."

This is about the drugs, therapydoc, and it is also about the way that both the manufacturers and the drugs are controlled.

Can you honestly tell me that these things (SSRIs, for example) work? How do you know that they work, and how do you know that they work outside the acknowledged benefit of the placebo effect? I don't believe that you can tell me that, any more than the MHRA could.

This whole business looks like a scam, where those in charge are incapable of presenting the very information that should have been established as a primary consideration. And this is done on the basis that the information is proprietary, commercial data? Purr-lease.

Matt

"To me this isn't about the drugs, which usually save lives not take them, it's about the management of the patient and poor history-taking."

I have always understood this website to be pro-patient and pro-information. In light of that, I am appalled by your statement. FYI, doc, "history-taking" is what slots people into DSM-dictated boxes. Secondly, I'm a person, not a "patient" and I don't need to be "managed." Thanks for your contribution, "therapydoc." Eli Lilly has a website you might want to check out.

Word. And a cyber-bouquet for Franseca.

I agree with a lot of what you had to say on this topic. The media should really step it up and bring more light to such issues on reported adverse events. This, in turn, would increase public awareness. However, I could not help but wonder if more media coverage on these drug related deaths would ultimately lead patients to experience feelings of betrayal and mistrust toward their health care providers. In other words, patients being handed prescriptions will no longer trust the doctors issuing them. This might even cause them to avoid seeking treatment for their illness or deny drug therapy altogether. It hurt me most to hear that “Risperdal, a drug associated with over 1,000 deaths, is used in children--and the FDA approved its use”. How can drugs such as this one, which is used to treat schizophrenia, continue to be prescribed? It might be true that this drug has helped many. But, the FDA has to ask itself the pressing question: do the benefits outweigh the serious risks. I believe that risks such as death and disability outweigh the benefits. More research needs to be conducted on these drugs, in order to properly label all the side effects and to determine whether it is best to simply take the drugs off the market as was the case with Vioxx.