Prozac Politics: How a Drug Helps Us to Understand Transparency in the Health Sector

  • Miriam Lindner

Abstract

While Prozac initially came to be termed the ‘wonder-drug’ for adults suffering from depression, the trend inevitably spread to the treatment of the pediatric population – that is, to children and adolescents aged 8 to 17 years. In 2003, however, America’s main drug regulator – the Food and Drug Authority (FDA) – was the first to approve Prozac for this age group. But reports of the scientific community followed soon, claiming that patients under the age of 18 should not be given antidepressants. There had been disturbing evidence that Prozac’s risks outweighed its benefits and that it led to severe adverse effects, most notably aggressive and suicidal behavior. Unfortunately, their voice was only partly heard: later that same year, the British Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a ban on new-generation antidepressants for the treatment of the pediatric population. But while it excluded Prozac from the ban, the European Medicine Agency (EMA) thought differently: it did not only decide to join the bandwagon of prohibiting the prescription of antidepressants for children two years later, but to extend the ban to Prozac as well. Eventually, the decisions by different European drug regulators – and their clashes with the American FDA – unleashed a heated debate about secretive proceedings in the health sector that affected the industry, its regulators, the scientific community, and the patient population. Only three years later, in 2006, the EMA suddenly approved Prozac for the treatment of children and adolescents under the condition that further clinical research was done – notwithstanding previous skepticism. And the debate continues until today. As such, it illustrates the thin line between economic benefit, consumer protection, and scientific progress, together with its mediating factor: disclosure of information or transparency. Furthermore, the case-study mentioned above serves well to highlight the shallow proceedings in the pharmaceutical industry, which, to date, remain corrupt and secretive.

References

Adams, M. (2007). Americans Fed up with Drug Industry Influence and FDA Corruption.

American Chinese Medicine Association.

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders (4th ed). Washington DC.

Comer, R.J. (2007). Abnormal Psychology. Worth Publishers, New York.

Dehue, T. (2008). De Depressie-Epidemie. Augustus.

Eli Lilly, Draft Protocol, TADSjr, UK/H/0636/001, September 29, 2006.

Eli Lilly, Response to MHRA, UK/H/0636/001,003, FUM no. 2, April 12, 2007.

Fung, A., Graham, M., Weil, D. (2007). Full Disclosure: The Promises and Perils of Transparency. Cambridge.

Herxheimer, A. (1995). Side effects: freedom of information and the communication of doubt. Side Effects of Drugs Annual. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Lausanne and New York.

House of Commons Health Committee. The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry. Fourth Report of Session 2005-05.

Hirschfeld, R.M. (1999). Efficacy of SSRIs and newer antidepressants in severe depression: comparison with TCAs. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 60, 5.

Ionnadis, P.A.J. (2008). Effectiveness of antidepressants: an evidence myth constructed from thousand randomized trials? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine.

Johnson, B.T. & Kirsch, I. (2008). Do antidepressants work? Statistical significance versus clinical benefits. Significance, 5(2).

Kolb, B. & Wishaw, I.Q. (2009). Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology. Worth Publishers.

Madden, B.J. (2004). Breaking the FDA Monopoly. Health and Medicine.

MHRA, Response Assessment Report, UK/H/0636/001, December 12, 2006.

MHRA, Assessment Report, UK/H/0636/001, September 9, 2009.

MPA, Mutual Variation Recognition Response Report, UK/H/636, April 29, 2005.

Perlis, R.H. et. al (2005). Industry Sponsorship and Financial Conflict of Interest in the Reporting of Clinical Trials in Psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry, 162(10).

Stafford, R.S. (2008). Regulating Off-Label Drug Use - Rethinking the Role of the FDA. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358.

The Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (CBG), Prozac (fluoxetine) - Paediatric Indication, Rapporteurs’ Assessment Report, 31 October 2005.

The Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (CBG), Joint Assessment Report, 6 February 2006.

Turner, E.H. et al., (2008). Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy. The New England Journal of Medicine.

Whitaker, R. (2010). Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Dru

Published
2015-07-16