Caution, Not Panic, Seen After Drug Warnings

[Guest guest]

I still think the drugs should be banned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/health/research/08depr.html?_r=1 & ref=science & o\

ref=slogin

January 8, 2008

Caution, Not Panic, Seen After Drug Warnings

By BENEDICT CAREY

A new study may help quiet fears that the suicide warning labels on

antidepressants are scaring countless patients away from medications that could

help relieve their suffering.

The warnings, which were mandated in 2004 by the Food and Drug Administration,

say the drugs can increase the risk of suicidal thinking or behavior in some

young patients. They stirred a fierce debate among psychiatrists, health

officials and patient advocates, with critics saying that the ruling (and the

headlines that accompanied it) went too far.

But the study, which appears Tuesday in The Archives of General Psychiatry,

finds that while the warnings appear to have alerted patients and doctors to a

possible risk, they have not caused a sharp decline in treatment rates.

The report is not likely to be the last word on the antidepressant debate,

experts said. But they added that it provided one of the clearest pictures to

date of how patients and doctors behaved in the wake of a controversial decision

by drug regulators.

The researchers analyzed prescription rates from three time periods: May 2002 to

June 2003, just before the debate over antidepressant side effects flared; June

2003 to October 2004, the period after the first public alert, that the drug

Paxil by GlaxoKline was associated with an increase in suicidal thinking in

minors; and October 2004 to December 2005, the year after the F.D.A. called for

prominent warnings on the labels of all antidepressants.

They found that the rate of Paxil prescriptions for children and adolescents

decreased by 44 percent after the 2003 warning on that drug. But the rate for

similar drugs, including Prozac by Eli Lilly, continued to increase in that age

group through 2003 and fell off only slightly after the labeling change, in

2005. The rate of prescriptions to new patients - a particular concern for

psychiatrists critical of the warnings - did not change significantly during the

warnings or after. Prescription rates to adults increased in the years studied.

In sum, the drug agency's warnings seemed to prompt caution rather than panic.

" The concern that the warnings would have a chilling effect on the treatment of

depression in young people was not born out by the data, " said the study's lead

author, Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia. His

co-authors were C. Marcus of the University of Pennsylvania and Dr.

G. Druss of Emory University.

[Guest guest]

I still think the drugs should be banned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/health/research/08depr.html?_r=1 & ref=science & o\

ref=slogin

January 8, 2008

Caution, Not Panic, Seen After Drug Warnings

By BENEDICT CAREY

A new study may help quiet fears that the suicide warning labels on

antidepressants are scaring countless patients away from medications that could

help relieve their suffering.

The warnings, which were mandated in 2004 by the Food and Drug Administration,

say the drugs can increase the risk of suicidal thinking or behavior in some

young patients. They stirred a fierce debate among psychiatrists, health

officials and patient advocates, with critics saying that the ruling (and the

headlines that accompanied it) went too far.

But the study, which appears Tuesday in The Archives of General Psychiatry,

finds that while the warnings appear to have alerted patients and doctors to a

possible risk, they have not caused a sharp decline in treatment rates.

The report is not likely to be the last word on the antidepressant debate,

experts said. But they added that it provided one of the clearest pictures to

date of how patients and doctors behaved in the wake of a controversial decision

by drug regulators.

The researchers analyzed prescription rates from three time periods: May 2002 to

June 2003, just before the debate over antidepressant side effects flared; June

2003 to October 2004, the period after the first public alert, that the drug

Paxil by GlaxoKline was associated with an increase in suicidal thinking in

minors; and October 2004 to December 2005, the year after the F.D.A. called for

prominent warnings on the labels of all antidepressants.

They found that the rate of Paxil prescriptions for children and adolescents

decreased by 44 percent after the 2003 warning on that drug. But the rate for

similar drugs, including Prozac by Eli Lilly, continued to increase in that age

group through 2003 and fell off only slightly after the labeling change, in

2005. The rate of prescriptions to new patients - a particular concern for

psychiatrists critical of the warnings - did not change significantly during the

warnings or after. Prescription rates to adults increased in the years studied.

In sum, the drug agency's warnings seemed to prompt caution rather than panic.

" The concern that the warnings would have a chilling effect on the treatment of

depression in young people was not born out by the data, " said the study's lead

author, Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia. His

co-authors were C. Marcus of the University of Pennsylvania and Dr.

G. Druss of Emory University.

[Guest guest]

I still think the drugs should be banned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/health/research/08depr.html?_r=1 & ref=science & o\

ref=slogin

January 8, 2008

Caution, Not Panic, Seen After Drug Warnings

By BENEDICT CAREY

A new study may help quiet fears that the suicide warning labels on

antidepressants are scaring countless patients away from medications that could

help relieve their suffering.

The warnings, which were mandated in 2004 by the Food and Drug Administration,

say the drugs can increase the risk of suicidal thinking or behavior in some

young patients. They stirred a fierce debate among psychiatrists, health

officials and patient advocates, with critics saying that the ruling (and the

headlines that accompanied it) went too far.

But the study, which appears Tuesday in The Archives of General Psychiatry,

finds that while the warnings appear to have alerted patients and doctors to a

possible risk, they have not caused a sharp decline in treatment rates.

The report is not likely to be the last word on the antidepressant debate,

experts said. But they added that it provided one of the clearest pictures to

date of how patients and doctors behaved in the wake of a controversial decision

by drug regulators.

The researchers analyzed prescription rates from three time periods: May 2002 to

June 2003, just before the debate over antidepressant side effects flared; June

2003 to October 2004, the period after the first public alert, that the drug

Paxil by GlaxoKline was associated with an increase in suicidal thinking in

minors; and October 2004 to December 2005, the year after the F.D.A. called for

prominent warnings on the labels of all antidepressants.

They found that the rate of Paxil prescriptions for children and adolescents

decreased by 44 percent after the 2003 warning on that drug. But the rate for

similar drugs, including Prozac by Eli Lilly, continued to increase in that age

group through 2003 and fell off only slightly after the labeling change, in

2005. The rate of prescriptions to new patients - a particular concern for

psychiatrists critical of the warnings - did not change significantly during the

warnings or after. Prescription rates to adults increased in the years studied.

In sum, the drug agency's warnings seemed to prompt caution rather than panic.

" The concern that the warnings would have a chilling effect on the treatment of

depression in young people was not born out by the data, " said the study's lead

author, Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia. His

co-authors were C. Marcus of the University of Pennsylvania and Dr.

G. Druss of Emory University.

[Guest guest]

I still think the drugs should be banned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/health/research/08depr.html?_r=1 & ref=science & o\

ref=slogin

January 8, 2008

Caution, Not Panic, Seen After Drug Warnings

By BENEDICT CAREY

A new study may help quiet fears that the suicide warning labels on

antidepressants are scaring countless patients away from medications that could

help relieve their suffering.

The warnings, which were mandated in 2004 by the Food and Drug Administration,

say the drugs can increase the risk of suicidal thinking or behavior in some

young patients. They stirred a fierce debate among psychiatrists, health

officials and patient advocates, with critics saying that the ruling (and the

headlines that accompanied it) went too far.

But the study, which appears Tuesday in The Archives of General Psychiatry,

finds that while the warnings appear to have alerted patients and doctors to a

possible risk, they have not caused a sharp decline in treatment rates.

The report is not likely to be the last word on the antidepressant debate,

experts said. But they added that it provided one of the clearest pictures to

date of how patients and doctors behaved in the wake of a controversial decision

by drug regulators.

The researchers analyzed prescription rates from three time periods: May 2002 to

June 2003, just before the debate over antidepressant side effects flared; June

2003 to October 2004, the period after the first public alert, that the drug

Paxil by GlaxoKline was associated with an increase in suicidal thinking in

minors; and October 2004 to December 2005, the year after the F.D.A. called for

prominent warnings on the labels of all antidepressants.

They found that the rate of Paxil prescriptions for children and adolescents

decreased by 44 percent after the 2003 warning on that drug. But the rate for

similar drugs, including Prozac by Eli Lilly, continued to increase in that age

group through 2003 and fell off only slightly after the labeling change, in

2005. The rate of prescriptions to new patients - a particular concern for

psychiatrists critical of the warnings - did not change significantly during the

warnings or after. Prescription rates to adults increased in the years studied.

In sum, the drug agency's warnings seemed to prompt caution rather than panic.

" The concern that the warnings would have a chilling effect on the treatment of

depression in young people was not born out by the data, " said the study's lead

author, Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia. His

co-authors were C. Marcus of the University of Pennsylvania and Dr.

G. Druss of Emory University.