clinical studies

Discuss autism theories, media stories, and efforts to put ASD on the government agenda here.

Moderator: ModeratorBill

Forum rules
Please limit quotes from articles to five paragraphs. Also, researchers may post study information here.
jend
Posts: 1152
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:34 pm

clinical studies

Postby jend » Thu May 18, 2006 7:37 pm

Thought this was interesting. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/ac ... iting=true Some of the studies involving antipsychotics I find disturbing especially with such a young and vulnerable population. Some of the studies I was surprised to see in respect to biomedical approaches. Especially, since the hypothesis on many of the studies expected positive outcomes.

BTDT
Posts: 3492
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:02 pm

Postby BTDT » Thu May 18, 2006 8:04 pm

Some of the studies involving antipsychotics I find disturbing especially with such a young and vulnerable population.


Would you prefer antipsychotics be given to children without any study of their safety and effectiveness?

jend
Posts: 1152
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:34 pm

Postby jend » Thu May 18, 2006 8:22 pm

No, but I would not want my 4 year old daughter being the one experimented on either. Some of these drugs when properly monitored do not seem to pose as many potential risks. Some of them are clearly dangerous, in that situation, perhaps they should just not be considered as possible treatments, if the only way to determine how bad the side effects are or what % of children experience these bad side effects is to test them out in young children. Especially, when in SOME of them they already know that dangerous side effects occur in the adult population.
I am not opposed to parents making informed decisions about the need to medicate their children. It just seemed disturbing in some of the studies to see such young children being recruited for studies involving drugs that are potentially dangerous. Not trying to start any controversy.
Perhaps, since in email it is impossible to hear tone of voice, we could try harder to limit sarcasm.
I almost all the time have questions or information that I start out wanting to share or ask and end up not doing it because there seems to be so much sarcasm and hostility here. I am sure, BTDT, that you do not think that I would actually "prefer" that antipsychotics be given to children without any study of their safety and effectiveness? So why do't you just state your opinion or ask me why I find it disturbing, why is there so much sarcasm and condescending attitude here. You can check out my VERY few posts. I am not a hostile poster. I am actually quite middle of the road in most of my views. I am open to any and all new information and ideas that parents have to offer. I guess it just seems in reading most threads here that many are just waiting to attack.

lookingforanswers
Posts: 2571
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:55 pm

Story from USA Today

Postby lookingforanswers » Thu May 18, 2006 8:47 pm

Jend, Thought this story from USA Today might interest you. Regarding the studies, we can only hope that there is true informed consent with the parents. A division of Johns Hopkins came under ethical review for a lead poisoning study that failed to warn parents about the dangers. See http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/24/healt ... 4LEAD.html for that story.

From USA Today:
Kids Dying From Off-Label Use Of Antipsychotics
May 11th 2006

Health

A recent USA Today sponsored review of the FDA database from 2000 to 2004 found at least 45 deaths in children under 18 with atypical antipsychotics listed as the "primary suspect," and 1,328 reports of other serious side effects, some life-threatening.

The FDA's adverse event reporting system is known to capture only between 1% to 10% of side effects and deaths, which means the true numbers are actually much higher.

Among the 45 deaths, discussed in the May 2, 2006, USA article, at least six were related to diabetes, and other causes ranged from heart and pulmonary problems to choking, liver failure and suicide.

An 8-year-old boy died of cardiac arrest. A 15-year-old boy died of an overdose and a 13-year-old girl experienced diabetic ketoacidosis, a deficiency of insulin. The youngest child was 4, with symptoms that indicated diabetes complications.

The most common adverse reactions reported were:

• A condition known as dystonia, which produces involuntary, and often painful muscle spasms, was the most common side effect with 103 cases.

• Tremors, weight gain, sedation, and other neurological effects with symptoms that varied from slight twitching to full-blown body jerking.

• The neuroleptic malignant syndrome showed up in 41 children, and was the most troubling side effect, according to child psychiatrist Joseph Penn, of Bradley Hospital and Brown University School of Medicine, because it can kill within 24 hours.

Atypical antipsychotics are a relatively new class of drugs approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. None of the drugs that include Clozaril, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Abilify and Geodon, are approved for children, but doctors continue to prescribe the drugs off-label for unapproved uses.

Even thought the package inserts for atypicals say their safety and effectiveness with children have not been established, a skyrocketing number of prescriptions are being written for children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder or other behavioral problems, according to a study in the March-April 2006, edition of the journal Ambulatory Pediatrics.

This study found that the number of children prescribed antipsychotic drugs had increased five-fold between 1995 and 2002, to an estimated 2.5 million, which represents an increase from 8.6 for every 1,000 children in the mid-1990s, to nearly 40 in every of 1,000 in 2002.

The researchers analyzed data on children with an average age of 13, who were involved in annual national health surveys involving prescriptions issued during 119,752 doctor visits, and determined that over half of the prescriptions were written for attention deficit or other non-psychotic conditions.

The findings are troublesome "because it looks like these medications are being used for large numbers of children in a setting where we don't know if they work," said the study's lead author, Dr William Cooper, a pediatrician at Vanderbilt Children's Hospital in Nashville, TN.

Dr Cooper and his colleagues were among the first to investigate the increase in antipsychotic use with children and teens, in a study published in the summer of 2004, that reported that prescriptions for atypicals had doubled among Tennessee children on Medicaid between 1996 and 2001.

Back then they found that 43% of prescriptions were written for ADHD, or a related disorder as the primary diagnosis, and 14% were written for bipolar disorder, and 9% for schizophrenia or other psychotic conditions.

In a later nationwide study, researchers concluded that 6 million prescriptions for atypicals were written for children between 1995 and 2002, and again found that a large percentage of the prescriptions were written with ADHD as the primary diagnosis.

"The bottom line is that we are seeing a huge increase in the use of these medications among children, and we are not sure if they work or if they are safe," Cooper told WebMD. "These drugs have not been tested for many of the indications that they are being used for."

Even more disturbing finding was recently reported in a study led by Oregon Health & Science University professor, David Pollack, that revealed that 246 preschool children under the age of 5, who were enrolled in the state-sponsored Medicaid program, were receiving antipsychotic or antidepressant medications.

The review of Medicaid records, reported in the April 2006, Oregon Health News, found that 41% of the preschoolers were prescribed psychiatric drugs for ADD.

Experts say the prospect of children under 5, receiving psychiatric drugs intended for adults is alarming. Also alarming was the finding that about 50% the prescriptions were written by primary care providers and not psychiatrists.

The study was a collaboration by Oregon's department of human services, Medicaid program, and the Oregon State University College of Pharmacy. An equally disturbing report was published in the April 25, 2005, Columbus Dispatch on an investigation of state Medicaid records that found 18 babies ranging from newborn to 3 years-old in Ohio had been prescribed antipsychotic drugs in July 2004.

In another analysis of privately insured children, by the pharmacy benefit manager, Medco Health Solutions, conducted for USA Today, the rate of children, 19 and under, with at least one atypical prescription had increased 80% in the four years from 2001 to 2005. This analysis did not include any children covered by government programs like Medicaid.

The study noted that atypical use among girls was much greater than with boys. The number of girls taking the drugs grew 103% from 2001 to 2005, compared to a 61% increase with boys.

The rate of children treated with atypicals "is growing dramatically faster than the rate for adults," said Robert Epstein, chief medical officer for Medco, in a press release.

"Doctors need to be judicious when prescribing antipsychotic drugs to children," Epstein warned. "There is evidence that the risk of diabetes and metabolic disorders from using atypical antipsychotics could be much more severe for pediatric patients than adults," he said.

"The use of these drugs," Dr Epstein warned, "can have the pediatric patient trading a behavioral condition for a lifelong metabolic condition that can lead to significant health complications."

Critics say the increased use of atypicals with children is most troubling because the dangers associated with the drugs, in adults and children, has been evident in the scientific literature since before they came on the market.

In the book, Mad In America, award winning author, Robert Whitaker, reports that one out of every 145 subjects who entered clinical trials for Zyprexa, Risperdal, Seroquel, and Serdolect died. By using the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to FDA data on the drug trials for the atypicals he determined:

(1) One in every 145 patients died but the deaths were not mentioned in the scientific literature.

(2) The trials were structured to favor the atypicals and most of the reports were discounted by the FDA as being biased.

(3) One in every thirty-five patients in Risperdal trials experienced a serious adverse event, defined by the FDA as a life threatening or one that required hospitalization.

(4) The atypicals did not demonstrate superior effectiveness or safety over the older antipsychotics.

In addition, persons on atypicals have been found to commit suicide 2 to five times more often than schizophrenics in general. According to Whitaker, "researchers in Ireland reported in 2003 that since the introduction of the atypical antipsychotics, the death rate among people with schizophrenia has doubled."

For instance, in October 2004, researchers from the Johns Hopkins Children's Center reported that atypicals were found to trigger insulin resistance in children, a condition that increases the risk of developing type-2 diabetes and heart disease later in life.

Results of the study were presented at October 20, 2004, annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Washington, DC.

In this study, the research team evaluated 11 children, some overweight and others obese, who gained significant amounts of weight while taking the drugs. Weight gain is a common side effect of the drugs, and is one of the factors that can contribute to insulin resistance.

Insulin resistance is said to occur when muscle, fat, and liver cells do not properly use insulin, which is produced by the pancreas to help cells absorb glucose and provide energy.

When resistance occurs, the pancreas tries to keep up with the demand for insulin by producing more until it eventually cannot keep up with the body's need for insulin, and then excess glucose builds up in the bloodstream which can lead to an increased risk of developing type-2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.

All six children in the study who were on moderate or high doses of one of the atypicals, and three out of 5 children who were on low doses, developed symptoms of insulin resistance.

The evidence in the trial indicating the condition included hypertension, high levels of triglycerides, increased levels of protein in the urine, and low levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol.

"The insulin resistance seen in these children was greater than what would be expected from weight gain alone, suggesting there is a factor distinct from excess weight that directly induces insulin resistance," according to the study's lead author, Mark Riddle, MD, director of the division of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Children's Center.

Basically to find out how the new atypicals worked in comparison to each other and to determine whether the drugs were worth the cost, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) decided to fund an 18 month study titled, Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE).

The results of the study were published in the September 22, 2005, New England Journal of Medicine and revealed that the drugs were barely more effective than no drugs at all.

The study enrolled 1,500 schizophrenic patients from 27 medical centers across the US. Neither the patients nor the doctors knew whether a patient was getting Zyprexa, Seroquel, Risperdal, Geodon, or Trilafon.

The scientists included Trilafon to represent the older generation of antipsychotic drugs. $44 million later, the CATIE report concluded that the new atypicals "have no substantial advantage" over the old ones.

While Zyprexa turned out to be the most effective, it also had the greatest number of side effects. The second most effective drug was Trilafon which stunned researchers. "The biggest surprise was that the oldest medication was comparable to at least three of the new medications and not much worse than Zyprexa," said Dr Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, who led the study.

Scientists involved in designing the study debated on whether to even include Trilafon, according to researcher, Robert Rosenheck, MD. "Many of us thought the question was decided and the old drugs were of no value," he said in a news conference.

Researcher, Robert Freedman, MD from the University of Colorado, published an editorial to accompany the report in the NEJM. "No drug provided the majority of patients a treatment that lasted the full 18 months of the study," he wrote. "Only 36% of the patients receiving the most effective drug completed the trial," Dr Freedman said.

In the end, 74% of patients elected to seek some other treatment rather than stay on their assigned medication. "The results could be viewed as discouraging," Dr Freedman wrote.

In what outraged critics are calling a blatant tax dollar funded marketing scheme, on May 1, 2006, the New York Times, revealed that "psychiatric researchers have been experimenting with a bold and controversial treatment strategy: they are prescribing drugs to young people at risk for schizophrenia who have not yet developed the full-blown disorder."

The findings from the trial, published in the May 2006 American Journal of Psychiatry, "suggest that this preventive approach is more difficult to put into effect — and more treacherous — than scientists had hoped," the NYTs says.

The study was co-funded by Eli Lilly and the National Institute of Mental Health and involved 60 patients, mostly adolescents, who supposedly scored high on a scale that assesses the risk for psychosis. The scale rates the severity of over a dozen symptoms, that include categories such as grandiosity, suspiciousness, and bizarre thoughts.

From 20 to 45% of people who score high will go on to develop full-blown psychosis, in which the symptoms become extreme, researchers claim. The trail subjects were divided into 2 groups, with one group receiving drugs and the other placebos.

In the first year of what was slated to be a 2-year trial, five of the 31 patients on medication developed full-blown psychosis, compared to 11 of the 29 subject on placebos.

However, by the end of the first year, more than two-thirds of the patients had quit, making it impossible to interpret any differences between the 2 groups. The report said that some subjects dropped out without explaining why; others moved; and 10 quit because they either felt the drug was not helping, could not make the appointments or did not like the side effects.

The only undisputable result was that patients taking medication gained an average of 20 pounds, once again verifying a side effect that has been documented for 15 years.

The prices charged for these drugs are over the top and their increased use, along with a few other types of psychiatric drugs, is in large part responsible for the escalating prescription drug costs.

The Medco Health Solution study determined that since 2001, antipsychotic costs for children have increased 196%, or nearly tripled, due to the increase in prescriptions written and the use of the new atypicals with children 97% of the time, rather than the older drugs that sell for only a fraction of prices charged for atypicals

Overall, in 2002, the total sales of antypicals to patients of all ages reached $6.4 billion, making them the fourth-highest-selling class of drugs in the US, according to IMS Health, a company that tracks drug sales.

Two years later in 2004, total sales had jumped more than $2 billion to $8.8 billion, with $2.4 billion of that amount paid by state Medicaid funds, according to the May/June 2005 issue of Mother Jones Magazine.

Schizophrenia drugs account for the biggest share of the $39 billion that states spend each year on prescription drugs. On October 23, 2005, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that nationwide, “Medicaid programs purchase an estimated 60 to 75 percent of antipsychotic drugs."

The highest expenditure for California's Medicaid, was Zyprexa at close to $250 million for the year that ended June 2005. Risperdal and Seroquel, ranked 2nd and 4th in the list of high cost drugs funded by Medicaid.

The costliest per month is Zyprexa, at an average cost of $399.26, according to the California Department of Health Services. In 2002, the Kentucky Medicaid program ended up with a $230 million deficit and the $36 million bill for Zyprexa was the state's largest per drug expense.

Judging by third quarter earning reports for 2005, fifteen years of negative studies have had no effect on sales that show:

Seroquel, $706 million, up 32%

Abilify, $206 million, up 58%

Geodon, $148 million, up 18%

Zyprexa, $1.035 billion, up 1%

In a disgusting twist of fate, Zyprexa's maker, Eli Lilly's diabetes drugs earned $653 million, up 13% when Zyprexa has consistently been found to be most likely drug to cause weight gain and high blood sugar leading to diabetes.

Risperdal is still Johnson & Johnson's top-selling drug, and had sales of $916 million in the 3rd quarter, up 23% from the same period a year earlier. This great news for J&J but translates into 916 fatalities for Risperdal patients, according to estimates by Allen Jones, a former investigator in the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, who says, "my best effort at correlating dollars spent with deaths from drug side effects suggests that people may be dying from side effects from the schizophrenia drugs alone at the rate of at least one death for each one million dollars spent on these drugs."

"The actual numbers may reflect a much higher death rate," he warns.

However, experts are predicting that drug company profits might soon take a dive in light of a study published in the September 2005 New England Journal of Medicine, that found that only one atypical worked slightly better than the 40-year-old antipsychotic drug, perphenazine, which only costs about $1.50 a day compared to 10 times that amount for the atypicals.

It is estimated that the Medicaid program overall could save as much as $5.5 billion annually on by switching to perphenazine. In addition, lawsuits are popping up all over the country filed on behalf of state Medicaid programs charging the drug makers with promoting the off-label use of the atypicals and seeking payment for medical costs billed to Medicaid arising from side effects of the drugs.

lookingforanswers
Posts: 2571
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:55 pm

Sarcasm

Postby lookingforanswers » Thu May 18, 2006 8:56 pm

I guess it just seems in reading most threads here that many are just waiting to attack.


Jend, I agree, though I would change the "many" to "some." Most people seem pretty nice. I ignore the ones that aren't. Now that everyone is registered, you can see the user name first at the top of the post, so you can scroll down and skip reading the posts of the ones who are waiting to attack.

BTDT
Posts: 3492
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:02 pm

Postby BTDT » Thu May 18, 2006 9:37 pm

Jend,

I was not attacking you, nor was I hostile, I was simply asking a question.

I am sure, BTDT, that you do not think that I would actually "prefer" that antipsychotics be given to children without any study of their safety and effectiveness?


Well, I really don't know, which is why I asked, since there really are only 3 options: (1) give the drug without studies, (2) give the drug with studies, or (3) don't give the drug. I guess I was assuming that you don't want the drugs to be given at all. Some parents, are faced with very difficult choices, such as trying a drug with potential side effects or dealing with dangerous and injurious behavior, and feel as though they have no choice but to try these drugs

Personally, if the drug is going to be given, I would prefer that it be studied first. Right now, there are no guidelines established at all for most of these drugs, it is very much a hit and miss approach. I know as a parent I would prefer my child to be given the drug in a controlled study situation where the child will be monitored.

I'm certainly not saying that these drugs don't have side effects, just saying that studies are needed if the drugs are going to given to children, and they will be given to children whether they are studied are not.

jend
Posts: 1152
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:34 pm

Postby jend » Thu May 18, 2006 10:53 pm

I understand and respect that every parent is faced with the responsibility of doing what they feel is best for their child. I have NO judgement and endless empathy for every parent who has to make difficult choices in order to help their children live their best life.
As a parent of 2 young children, after reading about some of the drugs in the study I did find it disturbing and I guess wondered why if they already know that there are serious side effects in adults they would continue to consider it for children. Perhaps, a better choice of word is sad. It is very sad that these are the choices that parents have to make.
Actually, my initial purpose in this post was to draw attention to the fact that there seemed to be a rather eclectic approach to the studies being done in addition to the medications there were educational intervention studies and biomedical intervention studies. I actually thought this would be something more optimistic then controversial :shock:

srinath
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:33 pm

Zoloft

Postby srinath » Thu May 18, 2006 11:40 pm

When my wife went to the doctor for him when he was ~ 2 years old ... or I believe she went to her doc with him in tow ... and he was having a typical day ... she ended up with a prescription and samples of zoloft ... I have like 2 months supply of it ... :lol:
Wonder what the street value of it is ... BTW sounds like a drug peddler isn't it ...
Cool.
Srinath.

give a mouse a cookie
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:40 pm

Postby give a mouse a cookie » Fri May 19, 2006 8:35 am

Dunno-
But according my High School daughter, Adderall goes for a dollar a pill. The ADHD kids sell it. :shock:

MCA
Posts: 2124
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:21 pm

Postby MCA » Fri May 19, 2006 9:02 am

Why would adderall be a dollar a pill?

give a mouse a cookie
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:40 pm

Postby give a mouse a cookie » Fri May 19, 2006 9:17 am

Again--dunno. She said that NT kids buy it because if they don't have ADHD, it gives them a "high" like speed would. Which made sense. She told me all this very matter-of-fact and was surprised I didn't know. I am so out of the loop. As for the cost, I have no clue what they base it on, but it would give them a dollar to go buy junk food with (or anything else, for that matter.) FTR, my daughter claims to have never bought one herself. She's very anti-alcohol/anti-drugs, a squeaky clean type.

merry
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:55 am

Postby merry » Fri May 19, 2006 9:30 am

It's so easy and common place for doctors to dispense medications before trying other treatments such as biomedicals or behavioral. I am not opposed to drugs when all else has been exausted. It is in the back of my mind that sometime we may have to resort to some. We did try ridlon (sp?) once and it decreased his activity level but increased the autistic characteristics (sat in the corner more and didn't want to talk to peers...). But I know of some children who could not function without something :?
Merry mom to A-14 yo boy with autism and type 1 diabetes

mom_of_an_autie
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby mom_of_an_autie » Fri May 19, 2006 11:23 am

I just wanted to share this experience from last night. I went to a "autism 101" seminar for parents of newly dx'd kids (we are not newly dx'd however I wanted to see what they thought new parents should know) Well the first part was given by a psychologist and she explained what autism was and that theres no cure and no know cause.......blah blah blah...then she gets to the part about therapies and inteventions. She talks about using medications to control some of the symptoms of asd then she flashes a warning sign up on the screen in black and yellow with a giant question mark saying be careful of other therapy options which may be seriously dangerous to your childs health. This list of therapies were....dietary supplimentation, dietary elimination, chelation, music therapy, and animal therapy. Now as a person who has eliminated food intollerance from my sons diet with GREAT benefit to him and very minimal supplimentation I found this offensive. This is why. I am not saying I am bothered by the fact that it was my particular path for my child red flagged . What I am bothered by is the fact that while there may be no hard core evidence that some of these therapies work for some kids there is also no evidence that there isnt either.Many parents have seen amazing results with some of these described. I am just saying if you want to talk about dangerous or potentially harmful side effects the warning should also be out there for those medications who are being tried in kids as young as 2 when they dont know what the potentially serious side effects of those are either. JUST MY OPINION but I personally would much rather take cheese out of my childs diet than to pump him full of risperdol. That was the option given to us when my son was 2 by a psychiatrist who TOLD us that if we didnt we were effecting his future....Again parents must choose the path that is right for their own child.

srinath
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:33 pm

Yes - been there done that ...

Postby srinath » Fri May 19, 2006 12:23 pm

Yes that seems to be Autism Society's stance on everything.
I believe they are all about coping with autistic kids and working around their ability/disability and in a sense keeping them autistic and us working around it. Of course the cranky ole (expletive deleted) in me thinks that if there was a huge drop in autism brought upon by effective treatments so we'd not be coping much at all ... then there'd be no need for an autism society. So the biomed group broke away from the AS and typically only covert references to it are made by AS members who also are bio med.
Cool.
Srinath.

Gabesmom
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:35 pm

Postby Gabesmom » Fri May 19, 2006 8:17 pm

Interestingly enough, the doctor that dx'd my son warned us against using any prescription drugs with our son. She said that these drugs actually had no research to support them as being useful in the treatment of autism and might actually be harmful. We were, however, given references relating to biomedical options and a couple of pages of information on the GFCF diet. She is a doctor of mainstream medicine by the way, so I guess not all of them are pill pushers.
Jennifer, Mother to Anna, 5 (NT), Gabriel, 4, Autistic

MCA
Posts: 2124
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:21 pm

Postby MCA » Fri May 19, 2006 9:49 pm

LOL, I didn't mean to debate the street value of adderall. I was just wondering why it would be such hot stuff to kids.

I think autism and autism spectrum disorders often have certain co-conditions that can be really helped by prescription meds like Adderall. Just sayin'. If it's necessary medically, it is amazing how it will help kids focus.

mom_of_an_autie
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby mom_of_an_autie » Sat May 20, 2006 10:20 am

Anti-psychotic drug use in kids skyrockets
Fivefold increase from 1995 to 2002, researchers find

Updated: 6:52 p.m. CT March 16, 2006
Soaring numbers of American children are being prescribed anti-psychotic drugs — in many cases, for attention deficit disorder or other behavioral problems for which these medications have not been proven to work, a study found.

The annual number of children prescribed anti-psychotic drugs jumped fivefold between 1995 and 2002, to an estimated 2.5 million, the study said. That is an increase from 8.6 out of every 1,000 children in the mid-1990s to nearly 40 out of 1,000.

But more than half of the prescriptions were for attention deficit and other non-psychotic conditions, the researchers said.

The findings are worrisome “because it looks like these medications are being used for large numbers of children in a setting where we don’t know if they work,” said lead author Dr. William Cooper, a pediatrician at Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital.

The increasing use of anti-psychotics since the mid-1990s corresponds with the introduction of costly and heavily marketed medications such as Zyprexa and Risperdal. The packaging information for both says their safety and effectiveness in children have not been established.

Anti-psychotics are intended for use against schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses. However, attention deficit disorder is sometimes accompanied by temper outbursts and other disruptive behavior. As a result, some doctors prescribe anti-psychotics to these children to calm them down — a strategy some doctors and parents say works.

The drugs, which typically cost several dollars per pill, are considered safer than older anti-psychotics — at least in adults — but they still can have serious side effects, including weight gain, elevated cholesterol and diabetes.



Large studies needed
Anecdotal evidence suggests similar side effects occur in children, but large-scale studies of youngsters are needed, Cooper said.

The researchers analyzed data on youngsters age 13 on average who were involved in annual national health surveys. The surveys involved prescriptions given during 119,752 doctor visits. The researchers used that data to come up with national estimates.

Cooper said some of the increases might reflect repeat prescriptions given to the same child, but he said that is unlikely and noted that his findings echo results from smaller studies.

The study appears in the March-April edition of the journal Ambulatory Pediatrics.

Heavy marketing by drug companies probably contributed to the increase in the use of anti-psychotic drugs among children, said Dr. Daniel Safer, a psychiatrist affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, who called the potential side effects a concern.

Safer said a few of his child patients with behavior problems are on the drugs after they were prescribed by other doctors. Safer said he has let these children continue on the drugs, but at low doses, and he also does periodic tests for high cholesterol or warning signs of diabetes.

Dr. David Fassler, a University of Vermont psychiatry professor, said more research is needed before anti-psychotics should be considered standard treatment for attention deficit disorders in children.

“Given the frequency with which these medications are being used, there’s no question that we need additional studies on both safety and efficacy in pediatric populations,” Fassler said.

dgdavis64
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Postby dgdavis64 » Sat May 20, 2006 2:44 pm

WOW! This is very distrubing! A FIVE-fold increase? I'm SO glad I didn't follow the recommendations of the drug pusher (Dr) that wanted to put Luke on Risperdal.
A five fold increase in the prescriptions for these type of dx's would indicate SOME type of epidemic don't you think?

This is one of the ALARMING things:


" Atypical antipsychotics are a relatively new class of drugs approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. None of the drugs that include Clozaril, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Abilify and Geodon, are approved for children, but doctors continue to prescribe the drugs off-label for unapproved uses.

Even thought the package inserts for atypicals say their safety and effectiveness with children have not been established, a skyrocketing number of prescriptions are being written for children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder or other behavioral problems, according to a study in the March-April 2006, edition of the journal Ambulatory
Pediatrics. "


Gee whiz, I thought chelation and Lupron were so dangerous................

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

r's mom
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:39 am

Postby r's mom » Sat May 20, 2006 8:37 pm

Gabesmom

When my son was dx'd the neuro dev said not at the mo but in a year or so my son would probably need to be put on meds. Also that it was a waste of time trying any type of biomed, that it was genetic and that his dad was most likely aspergers because I said that he had liked numbers as a young boy and was into astronomy (by the way is dad is very intelligent and is also into a variety of things - politics, history, bridge to name just a few)


Return to “Autism Articles, Studies & Politics”