Tampilkan postingan dengan label Big. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Big. Tampilkan semua postingan

Rabu, 12 Juli 2017

Cognitive Behaviorists and Big Pharma Demonize Tranquilizers for PTSD



A medical society called the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) publishes a set of guidelines for treating those people suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), such as soldiers returning from war zones or victims of natural disasters.

Treatments for PTSD generally involve both psychotherapy and psychiatric medications. No psychiatric medication controls two of the primary symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder:  re-experiencing the trauma as flashbacks, and becoming episodically numb or zoned out.  We do, however,  have a medicine that effectively controls the nightmares, believe it or not – an old blood pressure medication called prazocin. I will talk more about medication a little later in the post, but first let me discuss the psychotheray of PTSD. 

Many types of psychotherapy have been employed for PTSD, with widely varying results. 

In my clinical experience, many chronic PTSD patients have been given group therapy, in which they meet with other PTSD sufferers who have had similar experiences. I have found that this sort of treatment has been next to worthless for a significant percentage of such patients, particularly those patients who have been severely disabled by their disorder and who have been unable to work for years or even decades.

In patients with chronic PTSD (who do not also have severe personality disorders or majorly dysfunctional families), it is generally believed that the most effective type of psychotherapy is something called prolonged exposure therapy (PE), which is an intense form of what cognitive behavioral therapists (CBT) refer to as systematic  desensitization.  

It is a difficult process in which - and I am grossly simplifying it in order to be brief (and since I do not do this sort of work myself) -  the traumatic experiences suffered by the patient are relived under controlled conditions so that the anxiety and other symptoms generated by the memories can gradually be extinguished.  I have read that doctors have even experimented with recreating the traumatic events using virtual reality through computers, projected images, and earphones, to enhance the desensitization process.

In a PTSD treatment facility I know of, I was told that if a patient were taking a benzodiazepine tranquilizer like Klonopin or Xanax, then they would not be a candidate for PE and would therefore be referred to the aforementioned group therapy.  I was told this was the case because, CBT folks believed, that tranquilizers somehow affect the learning process so that the PE therapy was not effective if the patient were on the meds.  I had heard this idea before from other CBT therapists. 

However, since people who take benzodiazepines are almost never intoxicated, I had always thought this idea a bit strange. So I asked the head of the clinic for a reference. He did not know of one.  Interesting, I thought.  So I did my own literature search. 

Well guess what?  I found exactly one study that showed that benzodiazepines might affect learning in rats.  But in people?  All of the studies showed they had absolutely no effect whatsoever. 

Yet another urban CBT psychotherapy myth.

But then things got even stranger. I was also told that I should check out the treatment guidelines from ISSTS, which said that benzo’s were not indicated for the treatment of PTSD, and that  this clinic followed ISSTS guidelines.  On advice from the clinic leader, I looked up said treatment guidelines, which turned out to be pretty amazing.

Here’s what they said:

 “Although [benzos] are effective anxiolytics [anti-anxiety] and anti-panic agents, they are contraindicated [italics mine] for PTSD treatment.  They don’t reduce re-experiencing or avoiding/numbing behavior.  They should not be prescribed in patients with past or present alcohol/drug abuse or dependence.  Finally, they may produce psychomotor slowing or exacerbate depression. [Benzo’s] do not have any advantage over other classes of medications; therefore they cannot be recommended as monotherapy[again, my italics] in PTSD at this time.”

Being the cynical critic that I am, I should not have been shocked how a supposedly scientific document could be filled with so many half truths. (I’ll enumerate them shortly). But I was. And then I remembered that the pharmaceutical companies had been demonizing benzo’s ever since they all went generic and therefore became far less profitable for the companies (See my earlier post). 

The Cognitive Behavioral Mafia folks also has a vested interest in demonizing benzodiazepines, it seems to me, since the drugs are so effective for some symptoms. This leads to a situation in which  patients would rather just take drugs than go to a CBT therapist to go through systematic desensitization, which can be a long, involved process that is sometimes itself quite traumatic in the short run. 

This preference is unfortunately common even though it is probably better to treat chronic anxiety with psychotherapy than with medication alone, because when the therapy is successful, the patient might be  more or less cured. Not so with the medication.  If you stop them, the symptoms often return.  (And no, not because the medications cause the symptoms, but because they stop but do not cure the symptoms).

Of course, it is also a perfectly good idea to treat anxiety issues with medicine for the quick relief andtherapy for the eventual cure. You might then be able to stop the drugs after therapy is completed.  Remember, there is no evidence that medications interfere with systematic desensitization. Still, the CBT folks (and many psychiatrists as well) seem to think of drugs versus therapy as some sort of competition or zero sum game, so their prejudices just happen to coincide with the interests of drug companies: demonizing benzodiazepines. 

It is well documented by several news organizations that drug companies have insinuated themselves into scientific committees that draw up treatment  guidelines to make sure that their interest in making higher profits from their brand-named medication is advanced.  I do not have any proof, of course, but might this have been what happened with the ISSTS treatment guidelines for PTSD?

So let us return to the subject of the half truths in the ISSTS guidelines.  Most of the misleading ideas in the paragraph reproduced above have to do with the misconception implied in the guidelines that PTSD generally exists in some sort of psychiatric vacuum in which PTSD patients show no other symptoms of any other psychiatric disorders as well (Comorbid conditions). In fact, comorbidity is the rule rather than the exception.

For patients suffering from PTSD, I find clinically that the most important common co-morbid condition is panic disorder. In this disorder, sufferers experience severe anxiety attacks with physical symptoms that mimic those of a heart attack.  People who have been traumatized are especially vulnerable to developing panic attacks. 

I found it difficult to find information about exactly what percentage of chronic PTSD sufferers also have panic attacks, but in one study it was 35% and in those patients who sought treatment, 49%! (Cougle et. al., Anxiety Disorders 24(2), p. 183, 2010.)  In another study  (Falsetti & Resnick, Journal of Traumatic Stress 10, p. 683, 1997) the percentage was 69%. More than two thirds!

Yet another study (MacFarlane and Papay, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders 180 (8)p.498, 1992) showed that comorbid panic disorder is an important predictor of PTSD turning in to a chronic disorder.

People who have panic disorder also often develop agoraphobia - the fear of being out in crowded places.  Agorophobia is particularly likely to develop in combat veterans who have comorbid PTSD and panic disorder because of another symptom of PTSD: hyper-vigilence. It is as if these veterans have to remain constantly on guard for enemy soldiers, rocket propelled grenades, and improvised explosive devices – even though they are now back home in a safe environment. Being hyperalert in a crowd will often bring on panic attacks. 

This is probably one reason why patients with chronic PTSD and panic disorder may do not do well in group therapy. They are deathly afraid of groups.

Supposedly the first line treatment for panic disorder is an SSRI antidepressants like Paxil or Zoloft, but in my clinical experience benzodiazepines tend to be far more effective. The SSRI’s often only decrease the frequency and severity of panic attacks, but do not stop them completely as certain benzo’s often do. In fact, many victims of PTSD are already on SSRI’s when I first see them, and their panic symptoms and agoraphobia are not under any semblance of control whatsoever. 

So I add a benzo. The combination of an SSRI and a benzo is probably the most effective pharmacologic treatment of panic attacks of all, but you will never find a study that shows that.  In fact, you will never find a study using them in combination for the treatment of any disorder. The drug companies won’t fund such studies, because they don’t want doctors to think that benzo’s are good drugs.

Interestingly, the clinic I have been discussing allows patients who are on SSRI’s to get PE, whereas not so for those on benzo’s or the combination.

Back to the ISSTS guidelines.  They correctly point out that benzo’s do not help the PTSD symptoms of flashbacks and numbing - but no one has said that they do.  I agree that they should not be used as monotherapy for PTSD, as the guidelines say, for that very reason. But why would they be contraindicated (which means they should never ever be used under any condition)? The guidelines themselves start out by admitting that they are very effective for panic disorder, which as I have shown is highly comorbid with PTSD.

Well, maybe it’s because, “They should not be prescribed in patients with past or present alcohol/drug abuse or dependence. Finally, they may produce psychomotor slowing or exacerbate depression.” 

Well first of all, the first statement is not at all true for all patients, particularly those patients who have been sober for a significant period of time. Two different studies have shown that ex-alcoholics do not abuse benzo’s at a higher rate than anyone else. Also, some alcoholics are drinking only because they are, in fact, medicating themselves with alcohol for their panic attacks. They often STOP drinking when put on a benzo.

And even if a chronic PTSD sufferer becomes dependent on benzo’s, so what?  Is that somehow worse that being nearly housebound and completely disabled from work because of panic disorder with agoraphobia?  I think not. And the drugs have almost no side effects. The worst thing about being addicted to a benzo is that you are addicted to a benzo.

Ironically, a lot of the PTSD patients I see are never taken off SSRI’s. Essentially, they are dependent on them. But somehow that’s different. How?  Beats me.

What about benzo’s causing depression?  They sometimes do.  Rarely. The studies that led to FDA approval of the various benzo’s show that this happens in the range of 2-6% of cases. Not much different than placebo!  Sometimes one benzo will have this side effect on a given patient, while another will not. And if they all do in a given patient, they can be discontinued. Or an SSRI can be added for the very effective combination therapy, which prevents this side effect as well as the panic attacks.

The treatment guidelines do not say that SSRI’s are contraindicated because some people might develop side effects, so why should benzo’s be? This is particularly nonsensical in light of the fact that one common side effect of SSRI medication is increased agitation. PTSD is an anxiety disorder!!  (This side effect can also be treated with – you guessed it – a benzo).

Rabu, 17 Mei 2017

For Big Pharma Charity Begins at Home and at Taxpayer Expense



Martin Shkreli

According to an article in the British Medical Journal, from 2011 to 2014 drug companies have increased the prices of four of the top 10 drugs sold in the United States by more than 100%, and the prices of the remaining six by more than 50%. 

Most people are familiar with the story of Martin Shkreli, former chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals. In August 2015, he purchased a generic drug called Daraprim that treats toxoplasmosis—a life-threatening parasitic infection that many AIDS patients contract—and immediately raised its price by more than 5,000 percent. He has not been alone. The price of many generic as well as brand-named drugs has skyrocketed. In psychiatry, an old antidepressant named Parnate, available since the early 1960's, can cost over $250 per month. It probably ought to be one of those five dollar generics.

What a lot of people may not know is that these price increases are part of what seems to be a scam to bleed tax dollars from Medicare. According to a recent article in Bloomberg News, within days of increasing the cost of Darapin, Turing contacted Patient Services Inc., or PSI - a charity that helps people pay for the insurance copayments on costly drugs. Turing wanted PSI to create a fund for patients who had the AIDS complication that could be treated with Daraprim.

PSI, as it turns out, is one of seven patient-assistance charitable organizations commonly known as a copay charities. There are also many smaller ones. They offer assistance to some of the 40 million Americans covered through the government-funded Medicare Part D drug program.

Having just made Daraprim much more costly, Turing was now seemingly offering to make it more affordable. But that is hardly the whole story. It is also a story about how U.S. taxpayers support a billion-dollar system in which charitable giving is, in effect, a very profitable form of investment for drug companies—one that may also be tax-deductible!

Drug companies know that, all other things being equal, the more expensive they make a drug, the fewer people will purchase it. However, if insurance pays for the drug, then this is is no longer much of an issue. The kicker is that when the Part D Medicare drug law was passed, it included a provision that Medicare, with its leverage on negotiating drug prices created by the size of its insured population, cannot bargain with drug companies for lower prices. If the insurance company uses a "charity" which covers patient co-pays and the so-called donut hole, patients will fill their prescriptions and taxpayers end up paying the huge price increases.

As the Bloomberg article points out, "A million-dollar contribution from a pharmaceutical company to a copay charity can keep hundreds of patients from abandoning a newly pricey drug, enabling the donor to collect many millions from Medicare. The contributions also provide public-relations cover for drug companies when they face criticism for price hikes."

The article added, "Fueled almost entirely by drugmakers’ contributions, the seven biggest copay charities, which cover scores of diseases, had combined contributions of $1.1 billion in 2014. That is more than twice the figure in 2010, mirroring the surge in drug prices. For that $1 billion in aid, drug companies get many billions back.

According to a recent article in USA Today, charity-run funds are now facing new scrutiny by prosecutors in two states and by The Department of Health and Human Services' office of the inspector general. But the focus is only on whether or not co-pay charities favor donor companies' drugs over those sold by other companies. No one is challenging the whole scheme.

Those who are concerned that the government spends too much money and that the national debt is too large should ask themselves why politicians prohibited Medicare from negotiating volume discounts with Pharma companies, thusly creating these lucrative opportunities for them at taxpayer expense.

Selasa, 25 April 2017

Those Big Bad Benzodiazepines






Rare events in the midst of really large numbers of people are still quite common

I often get into debates with Pharma-brainwashed doctors and addiction specialists about the relative dangers and abuse potential of benzodiazepines like Klonopin, Valium, and Ativan. Even the DEA recognizes that they have low abuse potential by classifying them as Schedule IV, which literally means "low abuse potential." Adderall and opiates, in contrast, are Schedule II, which means high abuse potential.
Well, low abuse potential still means that some people will abuse them, but with any drug, risks must be weighed against benefits.
As to the risks, unless you are mixing them with other central nervous system depressants like opiates or alcohol,  the worst thing about being addicted to a benzo is that you are addicted to a benzo. For the vast majority of people, they don't cause any inebriation, and they have almost no side effects. For the few who do get troublesome side effects, the doctor can in those cases discontinue prescribing them. Just like with any other drug!
Benzodiazepines are worth their weight in gold in the treatment of panic disorder with agorophobia. Antidepressants can also help, but often not as much. And they have many moreside effects, including destroying a patient's sex life.
At the VA, where benzo's are discouraged, I literally saw veterans who were housebound since Vietnam because of comorbid PTSD and panic disorder (the two conditions are co-morbid in 50-70% of veterans with PTSD according to the only two studies). If antidepressants did not stop their panic attacks, doctors would not prescribe benzo's! If you had choose between having no life and being addicted to a benzo, which would YOU choose? I know what I would do.
For patients with borderline personality disorder who self mutilate - the "cutters" and "burners" for example - benzodiazepines can be combined with SSRI (or MAOI) antidepressants. This combination often results in either complete elimination of or a significant decrease in the frequency of this behavior. Much better and far more quickly than dialectical behavior therapy does, by the way.
There are no clinical trials that support that last statement because the pharmaceutical companies will not do them. Benzo's and antidepressants are generic and cheap, and they'd rather that docs prescribe drugs like antipsychotics that have far more risks. But I've been treating this population for forty years in two states, and in a variety of different clinical settings (private practice, academia, public mental health centers and inpatient units, and the VA), with tremendous results. And other doctors who do this get the same results that I do. So tell me it's anecdotal. So is the belief that parachutes reduce the number of deaths and injuries after falls from airplanes.
A common retort to my position has to do with emergency room admissions caused by misuse of benzodiazepines, as well as the fact that methadone and suboxone clinic patient love to mix those drugs with benzos. On the latter point the solution is simple: be careful prescribing the drugs in that population. And the former?
According to JAMA Psychiatry, there are an estimated 271,000 visits to emergency rooms annually for non-medical uses of benzodiazepines (and how many of these involve simultaneous use of other substances of abuse such as alcohol or opiates is not quantified, but it is probably very highly significant).

That sounds like (and is) quite a few - until you also learn that about 5% of adults between 18 and 80 are taking the medications, which is roughly 12.25 million people. So only about two percent of users end up with severe medical issues per year. Not zero, but a relatively small percentage, and btw, there were also an average of about 78,000 annual ER trips for problems during the same period related to...Tylenol. Maybe we should we ban it.

Senin, 27 Februari 2017

Big Red Nose Show aka TWAZOO NIGHT


A blog the day after tomorrow is better than tomorrow.

I wasn't going to go to the Big Red Nose Show at first. Mainly because it was on a Monday, my mum wouldn't pay for it on her card and no one would come with me. Can you imagine the conversation?
Me: Hey, do you want to come to the Royal Albert Hall next Monday with me to play a kazoo with loads of twitter people who you don't know?
Victim: .......
But because my best friend is my best friend she said yes and booked us tickets. She loves me.

But she wasn't as excited as me in the slightest. I was excited because twitter was there and I knew it was going to be another OMGLOOKITS*enter twitter name here*INREALLIFEIKNOWTHEM! moment. (and because it was a Guinness World Record attempt for charity, obv. But still, TWITTER) So I made us leave really early so we'd get there really early and be right at the front. We had standing arena tickets and I was not going to have anything less than front row middle otherwise I would STROP. People would get hurt. We did end up outside the Royal Albert Hall stupidly early, so early that no one else was there apart from a posh old lady who looked like this..

We were second in the queue and quite happily talking in newly formed posh accents to posh lady. But in denim shorts, tights and a "LOUISE YOU'RE SHOWING HALF YOUR BOOBS OFF. PUT A SCARF ON." top I don't think we hid our Essexness that well. At 6:15ish we were let into the bar, and after sitting eating Alpen bars for a bit we realised people had actually started queuing AT THE ARENA DOOR. I wasn't having that. So after my headband broke (which Clare found HILARIOUS but it was actually a CATASTROPHE) we casually did this...

It worked. Viking couple didn't say anything and as soon as the doors opened I stared at the spot I wanted and sprinted there as soon as my ticket was checked. BAM. Front row middle. And no one was hurt in the process, apart from my headband. We had our kazoos by this point and gradually the RAH was filled with wasps, or so it sounded. Or vuvuzelas at the World Cup but with your TV volume turned down a bit. This is when we started to really get excited. The stage was literally THERE right in front of us and chairs were everywhere on the stage. "THE TWITTER CELEBS ARE GONNA BE RIGHT THERE. MIRANDA. RIGHT THERE." Then the BBC Concert Orchestra came in and filled the seats. "Ummm." Then we noticed the rows of empty seats..

I won't lie. My heart sank a little bit. So many were going to be there! In front of me! Caitlin Moran (only my idol, no biggie), Emma Kennedy, Boyd Hilton, Grace Dent, Emma Freud, Charlie Condou, Tracy Ann-Oberman, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Dawn Porter, Sue Perkins, MIRANDA HART! Now there were literally 'up there' away from my stalkerness.

We tried to take a good photo of us but they all ended up red or shaky, so we gave up and mucked about..

The concert began with Basil Brush (yes really) and Katie Derham introducing and the orchestra doing their thing, which is really something up close. Sue Perkins even came on and conducted. MARVO.

But twitter wasn't here yet and I started to get figety. I really did miss the point of the night didn't I? But soon enough the announcement came that the celebs were joining us for the kazoo attempt. They filled the rows and I spotted everyone I loved, so naturally whipped out my phone and tweeted them all saying "I SEE YOU" which is not stalkerish at all and "I'M DOWN THE FRONT IN A BLACK CARDIGAN AND GREY SCARF!" I have no shame. Boyd replied "Woohoo!" and Krishnan replied "I see you" which was good enough for me. Even if I couldn't meet everyone my presence was known. Hell yeah.
Kazoo attempt 1 was hilarious, Sue Perkins was down with us conducting, then we went to a break and celebs disappeared. But Basil said we were going to do another attempt, meaning they were coming back. Hope was not lost. Sure enough they filed back in after the break and Marcus Brigstocke came on for a comedy bit.

This is where it all gets AMAZE.

He said that he was bringing down 3 friends to help him, and those 3 friends were Miranda Hart, Emma Kennedy and Mel Giedroyc. Now imagine my reaction. I think I stopped breathing and everything went a bit slow mo. (No I am NOT exaggerating and yes it WAS that big a deal to me) Miranda was bloody coming down the stairs onto the stage. Right in front of us. RIGHT IN FRONT OF US. The temptation to shout SUCH FUN! was overwhelming. You know when you want to look at someone but don't in case they see you're staring? That happened with Emma. I've followed her since I started twitter 2 years ago today and we've spoken a bit. She even follows ME which technically means we're friends right? I thought so. But now she was there AND THIS REALLY WHERE IS AMAZE GETS. (that is seriously what I just typed in my excitement. unscramble it for yourself)

I have no idea if she saw my tweet about where I was standing and wearing...but she saw me...and she recognised me...and she stopped and pointed and went "LOUISE JONES!" before being ushered by Marcus to the microphone. OH BUT IT DOESN'T STOP THERE. She still came over despite Marcus pulling her away begging for her to carry on with his bit (okay so I exaggerated that bit but I like to think that happened) and reached for my hand. Because of the shitting gap between the stage and barrier we only just managed to touch fingers. But I don't care. The fact she stopped what she was doing on stage to come and say hello was enough for me. Maybe I said hello back? I remember my cheeks hurting from smiling so much and frantically waving but whether I said anything is debatable. Anyway, that made my night and I could have died happy there and then. Maybe next time we'll have a proper conversation and won't have to pull our arms out of our sockets for contact.

The 3 did that thing where you tell a story but say one word at a time, and this particular story was about teaching a dog to play clarinet. It was hilarious. Then after more frantic waving they went back up before the second kazoo attempt and the stunning Nicola Icantrememberherlastname played a violin solo and Sue Perkins conducted the orchestra again BRILLIANTLY..
As it got near to 10:30pm I started to get panicky because it was a fair walk back to the station to catch 2 tubes and train home, and with my record I don't risk anything, but thankfully the Guiness World Record man came on to announce we had indeed broken the world record. HOORAY.
and Julian Lloyd Webber did a bit on his big instrument (cello? *shrug* whatever it was he wacked my brother with it at Gatwick airport last year. tsk.) And then we went home. Tired. Giddy. Incredibly smiley.

But in all seriousness, the night was brilliant. Celebrity twitter mania aside, it was amazing to see how many people turned up to support Comic Relief. My ticket was £5 which pays for mosquito nets for 12 children, so in my eyes I've saved 12 children's lives. Comic Relief is doing incredible things this year to raise money and most of it is all down to twitter. Twitrelief has been set up where you bid for a celebrity to follow you and for their extra prize, and I know there's been some controversial comments about it but in the end it's raising SO much money! What does it matter?! I'm just glad I've been a part of it and contributed some of my money and time to save lives, and I'm SO up for it again next year. Twazoo part 2. X