Seven Toxic Effects of Drug Companies

I'm the first to admire the strengths and virtues ofperphenazine, and the differences in outcome were
the free-enterprise model as it applies to drugminimal to none.3. When they draw attention away
development and sales. This model encourages drugfrom non-medication treatments.Drug companies sell
companies to employ talented people and to takedrugs. Therefore, when it comes to marketing their
risks in developing new drugs for serious medicalproducts, they have no interest in promoting -- or
problems. But let's face it, current practices alsoeven mentioning -- non-drug treatments. There are
produce undesirable effects.1. When their drug thatno salespeople making the rounds of doctors' offices
was wonderful last month is suddenly no good.It'sto remind physicians of the rigorously proved
been entertaining to watch the drug companiesbenefits of stress management training for migraine
suddenly come up with new, patentable variations ofand tension-type headaches, or of
their drugs just when their old patents are expiring.cognitive-behavioral counseling for depression.4. When
For example, since the 1970s, the Abbott companythey hook us on samples.Doctors' offices receive
has been doing a dance with different formulations ofsamples of patented (high mark-up) drugs and not of
valproic acid (used for seizures, migraines and bipolarunpatented (low mark-up) drugs. Therefore, patients
disorder). At first, the brand name was Depakene,are steered toward the expensive drugs by means
but when that patent ran out, Depakene wasof these "loss-leaders."5. When they shape medical
suddenly no good any more, and Depakote (justpractice.Drug companies aggressively court the
barely different enough to be patentable) was thethought-leaders, like faculty members at medical
only drug one should think of. Then when Depakote'sschools, with financial perks such as impressive fees
patent ran out, suddenly it wasn't any good, either.for speaking engagements. They also subsidize
Now Depakote ER (extended release) is the onlymedical publications. The effects of these marketing
way to fly.This approach of reworking the old drugactivities on medical practice are not necessarily
into longer-acting formats has worked for other drugbeneficial to patients.For example, tissue plasminogen
companies, too. For example, GlaxoSmithKline hasactivator (tPA) is an expensive clot-dissolving drug
gone through the same dance with their formulationsapproved for use in stroke patients. Its benefits are
of bupropion for depression, evolving from Wellbutrinmodest and its risks are real (brain hemorrhage and
to Wellbutrin SR (sustained release) to Wellbutrin XLdeath). Thoughtful clinicians might reasonably conclude
(extended release). Wyeth, seeing a good thing,that the benefits of administering tPA do not
followed the same path with venlafaxineoutweigh the risks. But this is not the message that
antidepressant, going from Effexor to Effexor XRcomes from many thought-leaders and publications.
(extended release). It's just an amazing coincidenceInstead, the implication is that administering this drug
how these new, suddenly-better drugs emerge justis a standard of care, and omitting it constitutes
when the old drugs expire and face genericmalpractice.6. When the sales reps push unapproved
competition.2. When they make us forget that theuses.Recently, a Pfizer sales rep told me that his
older drugs work just fine.Since 1954 we've hadcompany's drug, pregabalin, is effective in preventing
effective anti-psychotic drugs to treat schizophrenia,migraine. He shouldn't have said that. Pregabalin is
but beginning in the 1990s a series of newFDA-approved for treatment of epilepsy and
anti-psychotics emerged, now called the "atypical" ornerve-pain, but not migraine. Although physicians in
"novel" anti-psychotics. Suddenly, the older drugs -- allthe U.S. are allowed to prescribe drugs for "off-label"
generic and therefore reasonably priced -- were nouses, drug companies are prohibited from advertising
good. Only the new, patented anti-psychotics weretheir drugs for non-approved uses. In fact, Pfizer got
any good and one might even be guilty ofin trouble for pushing another drug, gabapentin, for
malpractice if one prescribed an older drug (orunapproved uses.7. When doctors don't think critically
continued prescribing one to a patient who seemedabout what they're doing.This, strictly speaking, isn't a
to be doing fine). Indeed, a generation of newdeficiency of the drug companies. But because the
psychiatrists cycled through training programs withonly salespeople that doctors see are for expensive,
this concept in mind, rarely writing a prescription forbranded drugs, the names of less expensive (or
an older drug.The alleged superiority of the newermore effective) alternatives may not come to mind
drugs was tested in the recently completed CATIEwhen prescriptions are written.(C) 2006 by Gary
(Clinical Antipsychotic Trials in InterventionCordingleyGary Cordingley, MD, PhD, is a clinical
Effectiveness) study and found to be absent. Theneurologist, teacher and researcher who works in
study compared four newer drugs to an older drug,Athens, Ohio.