Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

Child Suicide No Deterrent for Profit-Hungry Drug Maker

By Shelley Jofre, CorpWatch. Posted August 1, 2007.


GlaxoSmithKline provides research funding to doctors who write favorable opinions of depression drugs for children, despite evidence from clinical trials that the medication can cause anger and even suicide.
Advertisement

A striking young woman with a talent for painting, Sharise Gatchell was -- like many teenagers -- painfully self-conscious. At 14, she moved with her family from South Africa to England where at first she found it hard to make friends. By the age of 16 she was acutely embarrassed that her periods hadn't started and felt she was sweating excessively. Just the sort of thing to make adolescence even more painful than usual. Her mother, Stephanie, took her to see a consultant physician at the local hospital. Stephanie Gatchell recalls:

"During that consultation she became a bit emotional because she was explaining to him about the problems she had and how it affected her social life. Then she started crying and I was amazed. He asked her, 'Sharise, do you sometimes feel like ending it all?', and I couldn't believe it when she said 'Yes I do.' And then he started talking about paroxetine and suggesting that she try it."

"Off-label" Prescriptions

Paroxetine -- better known as Paxil in the U.S. -- is an antidepressant. It is licensed only for adults, but doctors are allowed to prescribe any medicine if they think it will help their patient, a practice called "off-label" prescribing. Sharise was not the only teenager getting paroxetine off-label. Around 7,000 children a year were on the drug in the UK; and many more in the U.S.

Within days of starting on paroxetine, Stephanie noticed a dramatic change in her daughter: she became more confident. But with the confidence came aggression and worse:

"One day in the kitchen her sleeve pulled up slightly and I noticed that there were cut marks on her left arm. I couldn't believe my eyes. She was obviously self-harming while she was on the drug, something she's never ever done before."

Stephanie persuaded her daughter to stop taking paroxetine. But in 2003 Sharise went back on it without telling her mother. When her parents returned from a weekend break, Stephanie immediately realized something was terribly wrong:

"I went upstairs before my husband came in, and the moment I got to the landing at the top and I turned round and looked, she was hanging from the loft hatch. I tried to revive her, but before I even started I realized I was too late."

Next to her daughter's suicide note lay a packet of paroxetine. Stephanie instinctively blamed the drug and now blames herself for letting her daughter take it. But she couldn't have known what the drug's manufacturer had known for years.

GlaxoSmithKline Experiments on Children

UK-based GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the second largest drug company in the world, which recorded 2006 sales of over $45 billion, had begun a series of clinical trials in the mid-1990s to test whether paroxetine would work in depressed children. Paroxetine had already been hailed as a wonder drug in adults as a treatment for everything from depression and stress to anxiety and even shyness. By the new millennium 100 million paroxetine prescriptions had been written worldwide, bringing in $2 billion a year for GSK and placing the antidepressant a close second to Prozac in popularity.

With the adult market sewn up, the company sought new ways to make money from the drug, or "life cycle management," as the approach is known in the pharmaceutical industry. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration wanted to boost the number of medicines tested for children and had introduced an incentive that would give companies a six-month extension on their patent just for carrying out pediatric trials. For paroxetine alone that would be worth $1 billion. And if GSK could be the first company to prove its antidepressant was safe and effective for children, the rewards would be even higher, as paroxetine could become the market leader.

Hundreds of children were recruited from around the world to take part in three clinical trials. One group was given the drug, the other a placebo. They were randomized controlled trials (RCT) where neither the children nor their doctors knew whether they were taking the active drug or the placebo until the end of the study. This is widely accepted as the best way of working out whether a drug causes a particular effect: the gold standard in terms of evidence.

But the outcome of these the trials was not what GSK had been hoping for. Paroxetine proved no better than placebo. In the biggest trial, Study 329, which was conducted across several sites in the U.S., 11 of the 93 children who took paroxetine developed serious side-effects; seven had to be hospitalized. Significantly more had self-harmed or attempted suicide on the drug than on placebo.

The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) obtained confidential case reports from Study 329 which detail what happened to them:

"[13 days after starting paroxetine] the patient became very angry. He punched pictures, broke glass and sustained lacerations that required six sutures... he expressed hopelessness and possible suicide thoughts."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: paroxetine, drugs, suicide, glaxosmithkline

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Link to the study?
Posted by: aethr on Aug 1, 2007 2:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe I missed it but I couldn't find a link to the study anywhere in the article. Nor did I find any real data in the article. On the other hand I did find some alarmist accounts of children doing the kinds of things children with depression often do. Without the study itself I'm unable to determine if this is a real issue or just more of the same, old alarmist anti-psychiatry noise that is way too common. So, please, point me to the link I missed or provide one, so I can look at the original work and find out if it actually supports the (so far unsupported) point of view of this article or if maybe there is something the author of this article didn't quite get right.

How can anyone write an article that purports to be supported by scientific data without providing that data and expect to be taken seriously?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Link to the study? Posted by: chomsky
» RE: Link to the study? Posted by: eloots
» The importance of clear citation Posted by: crazyquilt
» The studies are real Posted by: YogiBear
nuts
Posted by: snowhound on Aug 1, 2007 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are idiots. Our children are doomed to a sick and diseased society. I feel sorry for the future generations that will have to try and clean up this mess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not quite the whole story
Posted by: lb on Aug 1, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that drug companies have been less than forthcoming in presenting data that refute their claims about drug safety and efficacy. But it isn't as simple as the "bad" drug companies are lying to get their "bad" drugs on the market. You mention that the FDA is considering removing black box warnings on antidepressants because they "scare doctors". Last month a Newsweek article talked about the marked reduction in antidepressant prescribing to children and adolescents correlating with a dramatic increase in suicide. In the mental health field, we recognize that some people do not respond well to medication, but many more are helped. It is important that PSYCHIATRISTS are the ones who prescribe these medications, rather than pediatricians, internists and OB-GYNs. Psychiatrists are knowledgeable about the indications, risks and potential benefits of these medications and to monitor their use. The drug companies should stop marketing psychiatric drugs to non-psychiatrists, which would really cut into their profits since this is where the bulk of these prescriptions are written. (They don't market statins or blood pressure medications to psychiatrists.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My daughter's story
Posted by: fearless flower on Aug 1, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's so hard to know what to do sometimes as a parent when a child is having problems. Even though I hate to use medications and shun doctors like the plague, I ended up consenting to give our daughter, then 12, Paxil to control her symptoms of depression. She was not sleeping at night, acting up and failing in school, lying about assignments, and told me she was cutting herself, although I never saw the evidence.

She took Paxil for six months and it did seem to help at first. Then she began having fits if rage that would sometimes end with her physically attacking me or another family member. Right around that time the first reports were becoming public that Paxil was dangerous for children and we took her off it. Then we began round after round of other psych meds which only made her physically ill with their side effects. Finally a specialist in treating children with biochemical imbalances diagnosed her as "brilliant and spoiled" and recommended no medication for her. She began to take better care of herself, taking vitamins, exercising and eating better (stopped hoarding candy by the bag in her room...probably the cause of everything in the first place!)

She's doing fine now, on no medications. She went from barely passing 8th and 9th grade to consistent honor roll student in 10th and 11th grades. This summer she is working two jobs and has a boyfriend who is a good kid from a good family. She is still brilliant and spoiled, but at least I know she will be all right some day on her own.

Dr. Jay Lombard is the specialist we saw. He has written a book called "Balance Your Brain; Balance Your life" which has been available at Barnes and Nobles."

While medication may have a role in some cases, it is crucial to address other issues of nutrition and lifestyle as well. Sugar is also a drug that is very detrimental to mental health and one of the best things a parent can do to protect their kids is to restrict that in their diets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My daughter's story Posted by: Oregonrose
PHARMA = CORRUPT
Posted by: Roverton on Aug 1, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are their Guinea Pigs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So Who Will Tell Us Why?
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Aug 1, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there are many legitimate cases of childhood depression, as some posters say, then who is conducting research to find out why so many kids are depressed?

As a layman, I am of the opinion that it's because modern life is rubbish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So Who Will Tell Us Why? Posted by: VZEQICVA
» We know why Posted by: lb
» RE: So Who Will Tell Us Why? Posted by: chomsky
a big chunk of info missing
Posted by: nal on Aug 1, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The symptoms that they describe these kids going through after starting anti-depressants is textbook bi-polar disorder (manic depressive). The problems they are having after starting their prescription is indicative of mania and hypo-mania. Anyone familiar with bi-polar knows that the use of anti-depressants can actually cause depression and manic episodes.

Because bi-polar is hard to identify in children, is it possible that the percentage of kids who have problems with these anti-depressants is actually children with un-diagnosed or not fully developed bi-polar disorder?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take Time.......
Posted by: picket on Aug 1, 2007 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of spending all summer running around seeking funds for their next election run, our "so-call LEGISLATORS, should read what THE PEOPLE are saying about life in 21st Century America.

The next generations really need help. Thank you to all the honest professionals that are working hard for health and justice BUT sometimes its better to be poor than to GO ALONG with policies you know are WRONG in your employment.

I watched Dr. Keith this AM about a 22 year old college student who while living in a physically abusive family she told the DARE officer. When the family was investigated the step parent said that she a 10 year old was sexually molesting the 8 or 9 year old step brother.... imitating a sex act fully clothed that they had seen the parents doing.

The girl ended up in a detention center for 18 months. She is a registered sex offender with her picture on the Internet, being told by some in authority that people like you should be shot.

Is it just me or do others wonder if those in authority really care about our SICK Human Control Policies? Power ...Money ...Authority......Greed...reigns !!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blamin' the Man
Posted by: crazyquilt on Aug 1, 2007 12:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Articles on psychiatry in progressive circles are so predictable, and the comments appended thereunto even more so: Shrinks = bad. Disease is the result of a sick, sinful society; IOW, it's someone else's fault.

Let me preface my further comments by saying that I am 39 years old, and have suffered from dysthymia since my early teens. I have tried everything from meditation and St John's Wort to psychotherapy to drugs, licit and otherwise, to alleviate what often feels like unending misery and hopelessness. I have also done a significant amount of research, formal and otherwise, into the experience and treatment of depression. I note this only because I feel the experience of one who is on the inside of the experience is fundamentally different than that of those who love, care for, and treat depressive people.

I have no problem seeing GSK or other drug makers as mercenary capitalists with little corporate concern for the health and well being of human beings (as opposed to corporate entities.) However, criticism of psychopharmacology often hinges on knee-jerk reactions to the mere idea of psychiatric drugs. Like most knee-jerk reactions, there is only a tenuous link to empirical realities. People don't like to see themselves are the sum of their brain's chemical reactions, and it's frightening to think a little pill can make one into a whole new person. Faith healing, whether it's the laying on of hands or the application of some herbal poultice, is much less threatening, because it doesn't seem to challenge the idea of personal autonomy. It's the radical extension of client centered therapy, wherein the client becomes the care provider, with no need to accept any external authority -- or face any realities that are too painful to consider.

The story which opens the article was, to my mind, predictable and shocking not for the negligence of GSK, but the ignorance of the treating physician, and the willful blindness of parents who self-report spoiling their child. Treating mood disorders is complex; there is no one-size-fits-all. Medication can be extremely helpful, but it is useless without cognitive therapy which allows the depressive to attempt to put the changes going on in their head into some context.

Anyone with more than passing knowledge of suicide will tell you that successful suicides frequently seem to improve, even appear hopeful, just before their demise. It is as if the malaise that inspired the suicide also kept its sufferer from going through with it; with the slow lifting of the malaise, the newfound ability to act can take forms both constructive and tragic. Therapy increases the likelihood of the former, while also increasing the likelihood that the latter can be caught before it is too late.

To give a rather prosaic analogy, it's akin to getting your ears pierced, obsessing about the cleanliness and experience of the piercer, and then failing to do even the most basic after-care, then blaming the piercer when an infection arises.

Treatment of depression and other mood disorders must be holistic -- not in the limited, self-serving sense favored by your favorite homeopathic or herbal care provider or author -- i.e., not allopathic -- but in its original, more expansive, meaning: attention to psychogenic, somatogenic, and sociogenic factors which contribute to the creation of complex systems which are more than the sum of their parts. Blaming any single origin, whether an uncaring pharmacology corporation, an inadequately trained health provider, or parents who don't want to see that their precious baby is less than perfect is lazy, intellectually dishonest, and ultimately doomed to fail in the task of healing a child who is lost in woods so dark that they have no hope of finding the path out alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sigh.....
Posted by: inverse_agonist on Aug 2, 2007 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Crazyquilt is exactly right to point out that depressive symptoms often seem to improve immediately before suicides, as if the lethargy from depression itself was preventing the person from going through with the suicide. This is no secret, and any competent doctor prescribing antidepressants would be aware of this. Paradoxically, the fact that someone committed suicide shortly after beginning antidepressant treatment is evidence that the drug seemed to be working and other aspects of the patients' care didn't.

Secondly, people depressed enough to see a psychiatrist are ALREADY at increased risk of suicide, and one would EXPECT depressed people to have higher suicide rates than nondepressed people (i.e., people not on antidepressants). At least in adult veterans, SSRI treatment actually reduces the risk of suicide:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/164/7/1044

Now, I think corporations do a lot of harm in the world as much as the next reader of Alternet, but knee-jerk condemnation of pharmaceutical companies has a pernicious effect.

Consider the fact that Vioxx was taken off the market because it raised people's risk of heart attack from "probably not going to happen" to "still probably not going to happen." For people with stomach conditions, a marginally increased risk of cardiovascular problems was a better bet than the gastrointestinal problems associated with other pain medications. Many patients were now denied the Vioxx that was helping them because of public perceptions that "the evil pharmaceutical companies are trying to give us heart attacks."

Consider that Purdue was fined $634 million for claiming that Oxycontin had lower abuse potential than other oxycodone formulations when taken as directed, which is true. I'm sure many Alternet readers believe Oxycontin, an effective pain medication, should be taken off the market and denied to patients in severe pain because some people managed to kill themselves by illegally acquiring Oxycontin, crushing the pills, and injecting them. Those people certainly died because pharmaceutical companies are evil.

Consider the people who would subject their children to the risk of easily preventable diseases because of a non-existent link between vaccinations and autism.

There is no need to make up stuff about pharmaceutical companies trying to kill your children in order to criticize them. There are all sorts of reaons the profit motive distorts medical practice (e.g., developing costly "new" medications simply because the patent on an old, effective one is about to run out).

The general public has completely unrealistic expectations for medicines. Every drug, no matter how safe, is going to have risks and side effects associated with it. This is because the molecular targets of drugs are usually found in multiple places in the body. It's simply not possible to develop a non-addictive opiate painkiller, for example, because the relevant type of opiate receptor is found in pain-related parts of the central nervous system as well as "reward"-related parts.

Whether a given risk of a drug is worth the benefit for a given patient is between them and their doctor, and I strongly oppose heavy-handedly reducing the number of options because John Smith took some pills and happened to have a heart attack 3 weeks later.

There are hundreds of things for liberals/progressives to criticize about the health care system that don't reduce our credibility the way the title of this article has.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Children and the elderly make good guinea pigs
Posted by: ld7440 on Aug 3, 2007 4:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drug companies want to get rich; that much is clear. If they can encourage physicians to over-prescribe to children and the elderly, so much the better. In order not to fall prey to their influence, it behooves us to educate ourselves as much as possible. It's not necessary to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." Medications can be helpful. As a therapist, I have treated many depressed clients with counseling alone, and with others I have recommended a psychiatry consult. But even so, consumers need to be aware of the benefits and pitfalls of starting on a medication regimen. Although child psychiatrists are the authorities, the final decision rests with parents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]