Clinical trials do something else not often noticed – they enable the marketing of psychiatric disorders. If our drug makes a difference for post-traumatic stress disorder, or other condition, the disorder must in fact exist. The role companies play in disease-mongering of this sort has come into clearer focus in recent years. 20
OBSESSIVE–COMPULSIVE DISORDER
In Chapter 9, the effect of clomipramine in obsessive–compulsive disorders (OCDs) was noted. This agent was produced in the hope that by chlorinating imipramine a more effective compound would be produced. Clomipramine is among the more effective tricyclics but it also had more side effects, especially effects on sexual functioning. It was associated with a greater number of unexplained deaths. This faced Geigy, its manufacturer, with a marketing problem.
Studies had suggested to Geigy that clomipramine was anxiolytic. It seemed good for both phobic and obsessional disorders. However, the market for the treatment of anxious or phobic depressions was at that time being targeted by the producers of the monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) antidepressants. Clomipramine was therefore steered toward OCD. A great deal of research supports its beneficial effects in OCD. 21 Indeed, for a long time there was no research supporting any other treatment for obsessional states, but the fact that there was no research supporting a usefulness of other drugs for obsessional disorders does not mean that other compounds may not be useful. It is in the lack of research on other compounds that the rub lies.
There are two problems. One is that there is good reason to believe that other drugs, and in particular the antipsychotics, in low doses, can be beneficial in obsessional disorders. Until clomipramine, however, no company had any incentive to develop the OCD market: there just did not seem to be enough people with the condition to warrant the development costs. Until the mid-1980s, estimates of the prevalence of OCD stood at something like 0.05%; now it is thought that up to 3% of the population may have it. Recognition of OCD has gone up partly because of company support for its recognition. Following the success of clomipramine, the selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) companies had an incentive to sell OCD in the belief that, if they increased its recognition, the sales of their compounds would follow. This, it should be noted, is not necessarily a bad thing, as it can be argued that until recently OCD was under-recognised, but this selling of diseases does change the way we all view clinical problems.
The example of clomipramine and the SSRIs used in the treatment of OCD shows drug companies listening to some rather minor research, the outcomes of which suited their interest. In this and other cases they then cultivate the germinating seedling. At present, an increasing proportion of clinical research is closely tied to the marketing of compounds. As non-commercial research becomes increasingly difficult to fund, particularly for relatively uncommon conditions such as obsessional disorders, the funding that might come from drug companies becomes ever more attractive. Where OCD was concerned, effectively from the early 1970s to the mid-1980s the only research being funded was by Ciba-Geigy.
The question of who is listening to the outcomes of research, what resources they have, and what interests they might have in promulgating the results of that research, is becoming an increasingly important one in science generally but perhaps in psychiatry in particular. For example, exposure therapy has had in comparison far fewer resources pushed its way, even though it is probably more beneficial for obsessional disorders than the SSRIs. The field must inevitably become distorted if information about SSRIs is facilitated but that about exposure therapy is not.
The development of science is popularly thought to result from the efforts of heroic scientists to push back the frontiers of knowledge. Histories of scientific developments tend to ignore the economic or commercial basis to developments and enterprises. Nowhere is this truer than in medicine, where the idea that medicine might have associations with business is viewed with abhorrence. Those involved in health are supposed to be motivated by the loftiest of motives – how else could one face suffering humanity and live with one’s conscience? Without wishing to question anyone’s motives or integrity, it has to be pointed out that the evidence suggests that modern medicine is increasingly a business rather than a caring profession.
THE MARKETING OF SOCIAL PHOBIA
Up to the mid-1960s, the MAOIs had been the most popular antidepressants. Then the ‘cheese effect’ was discovered, and in a large clinical trial it appeared that the MAOIs didn’t work. There was a dramatic slump in the sales of the MAOI antidepressants from which they have never recovered. However, many of the clinicians who used MAOIs regularly were not prepared to accept that these drugs were not antidepressants. If they were not as effective for conventional depression, the argument was that they must be suitable for other forms of depression. Conveniently, from the early 1960s, there had been suggestions that MAOIs might be specifically beneficial for a variety of atypical depressions, usually those with prominent anxiety features.
The concept of atypical depressions flourished during the 1970s and 1980s, even though no form of atypical depression with a specific response to MAOIs was ever substantiated. The concept should have vanished down the plughole of interesting but irrelevant concepts but it did not, in great part because it provided a marketing niche, used for the advertising of MAOIs.
What advertising? An increasingly large proportion of the scientific literature supplied to prescribers and other mental-health professionals is supplied to them by drug companies. In many instances, this is an uncomplicated provision of information, in the form of free literature searches and other facilities, but this trend has its downside. Companies will rarely spontaneously provide information that might not be supportive of their product or that is too supportive of competing treatment modalities. This lends a bias to the clinical enterprise. It also leads to concepts such as atypical depression surviving when they might otherwise have vanished into oblivion.
Then in the late 1980s, Roche, who made moclobemide, then a new MAOI, discovered social phobia. This led to efforts to develop a social phobia market. Moclobemide failed to obtain a licence for social phobia but paroxetine and other SSRIs have done so and in the case of paroxetine the marketing of social phobia won a series of best marketing awards. 20 As recently as 1990, social phobia was all but unrecognised in the UK or the USA; now there are estimates that 3% of the population may have it, with up to 10% of the population exhibiting a milder form. Social phobia is not actually being manufactured, but what is being supported are campaigns to make general practitioners and others aware of the latest information on this condition and to make the public aware that they may have a condition that could benefit from treatment.
Some good may be done by an increased recognition of cases of social phobia resulting from company efforts to educate clinicians. Some harm will be done by the unmonitored treatment of patients with agents that may make some of them suicidal. This will be a particular issue in the case of people who are shy rather than socially phobic and who are treated with SSRIs by mistake. The power of companies can be seen in one more small detail. Social phobia has become social anxiety disorder; in part it seems to suit the marketing needs of GlaxoSmithKline. 8
ALPRAZOLAM AND PANIC DISORDER
In 1964, Donald Klein suggested that within the subset of phobic/anxiety disorders there was a condition he termed panic disorder (see Klein22). This was a state of almost pure physical panic, without many apparently psychological features such as avoidance behaviour. He proposed that it might be an anxiety state particularly liable to respond to drug treatment. In 1980, the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders


Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

