GlaxoSmithKline found guilty of misleading the public

15 November 2001

 

http://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news-archive/glaxosmithkline-found-guilty-of-misleading-the

The international watchdog for the drugs industry has published a report finding the drugs company GlaxoSmithKline guilty of misleading the public about one of its products. The finding followed complaints about claims made by a senior executive of the company on national American TV about the anti-depressant drug Seroxat (known as Paxil in the United States).

The complaint was raised by Charles Medawar of Social Audit, and has been legally supported on a pro bono basis by Anne Winyard of Leigh Day & Co. The company had given misleading information about the frequency of withdrawal problems - when patients stop taking Seroxat - and failed to respond to Social Audit's queries about the basis of its claims. The complaint was based on a breach of the industry's marketing code of conduct and sets an important precedent, requiring companies not to give misleading and incorrect information on TV and radio as well as in promotional material written by themselves

Social Audit Ltd
P.O. Box 111 London NW1 8XG
Telephone/Fax: 0207 586 7771
mail@socialaudit.org.uk and http://www.socialaudit.org.uk

  http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/4632-XSA.htm#Dear   Heather Simmonds, Director Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority 12 Whitehall London SW1A 2DY 20 May 2002

Dear Mrs Simmonds,

We wish to make a formal complaint under the Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry about statements relating to the safety of Seroxat (paroxetine, GlaxoSmithKline) made on behalf of the company by Mr. Alan Chandler, Director of Corporate Media UK. In considering this case, we ask the Code of Practice Authority to take into account the circumstances and outcome of our previous complaint about this company Case AUTH/IFPMA/5/7/01 Statements about Paxil (IFPMA Reference C2001101) which related to comparably misleading statements made about the same drug.

1. In an article by Anastasia Stephens in The Independent of 1st October 2001, Mr Chandler was reported as saying (of paroxetine and other SSRIs) "Theres no reliable scientific evidence to show they cause withdrawal symptoms or dependency." I telephoned him on 3^rd October to ask if he had been accurately quoted. He confirmed he had: "Absolutely, Anastasia reported exactly what I said". I then wrote to Mr Chandler, asking him to substantiate his statement, "by reference to any authoritative body of opinion in agreement with you or failing that, by any medically qualified person within GlaxoSmithKline PLC"

Mr Chandler replied on 17 October 2001, simultaneously stating that he was not referring to withdrawal symptoms, but had been accurately quoted. He claimed he had been quoted out of context, but that this "is not the fault of the journalist as she was covering a complex situation." This contradicted his earlier statement that he had been accurately quoted, but we did not pursue the issue, as Social Audit was then engaged in the aforementioned complaint against GSKs Dr David Wheadon, who had claimed that withdrawal reactions from paroxetine were very rare. We did produce Mr Chandlers statement and response at the Appeal Board hearing, but no adjudication was involved.

2. We would have left it at that, had we not seen reported comments of the same general kind, attributed to Mr Chandler, reported by Catherine Jackson (Editor) in an article in the April 2002 issue of Mental Health Today: "You have a product thats been available for over ten years and has benefited tens of millions of patients. As more patients use the product globally you are bound to get these reports of bizarre side effects," says Alan Chandler, director of Corporate Media UK. "There is no scientific evidence that Seroxat leads to addiction and dependency. There have been one or two reports of discontinuation symptoms with abrupt cessation, which is why our data sheets [doctor and patient information leaflets] reflect new advice to taper off the medication. The data sheet is a living document and as usage of the product increases the labelling reflects the current usage experience"

I wrote to Mr Chandler again, on 7 April 2002, asking him to confirm he had been accurately quoted. Three weeks later, I wrote again with the same request, as I had received no response. Mr Chandler replied on 3^rd May. He declined either to confirm or deny the remarks attributed to him. It was open to him to deny he would ever have said anything like, "there have been one or two reports of discontinuation symptoms with abrupt cessation", but he did not. That statement is misleading and unacceptable for reasons explained and amply documented in our earlier complaint. As Mr Chandler knew, or ought to have known, withdrawal reactions indicative of dependence have been reported with paroxetine (e.g. to the WHO Centre at Uppsala and to the Medicines Control Agency) more than any other drug.

3. The statements complained of clearly violate Article 7 of the WHO Ethical Criteria ". All promotion-making claims concerning medicinal drugs should be reliable, accurate, truthful, informative, balanced, up-to-date, capable of substantiation and in good taste. They should not contain misleading or unverifiable statements or omissions likely to induce medically unjustifiable drug use or to give rise to undue risks ." These statements also fall short of the requirements of the IFPMA Code: "Information must be provided with objectivity, truthfulness and in good taste accurate, fair and objective and presented in such a way as to conform to high ethical standards" (I.2) based on an up-to-date evaluation of evidence that is scientifically valid and should not give an incorrect or misleading impression (I.3) "

We have previously supplied both the Authority and the Company with evidence of our concerns relating to the nature, extent and severity of withdrawal symptoms and dependence with paroxetine in particular, the monograph (Medawar, 1997) published in the International Journal of Risk and Safety of Medicine and the further evidence reported (1997-2001) on our website, The Antidepressant Web. However, we outline below the facts that persuade us that the Company is in breach of several provisions of the ABPI Code of Practice, under which this complaint is made.

3.2 "The promotion of a medicine must be in accordance with the terms of its marketing authorization and must not be inconsistent with the particulars listed in its summary of product characteristics"

The statement, "There have been one or two reports of discontinuation symptoms with abrupt cessation" especially in the context of a reference to tens of millions of satisfied users is tantamount to claiming that withdrawal reactions are very rare (traditionally, <1:10,000). Though the Summary of Product Characteristics does not put a figure on the incidence, all available evidence indicates this is a grotesquely misleading under-estimate. The EMEA/CPMP position paper published in April 2000, acknowledged that withdrawal reactions were "well-recognised." They also stated that the term 'withdrawal reactions' should be used, not 'discontinuation reactions' as has been proposed by some marketing authorisation holders". The incidence of withdrawal reactions reported in the US label since modification by the FDA in late 2001 is greater than 1:100 and should therefore be described as "common". The implication that withdrawal symptoms occur only with "abrupt cessation" is unwarranted.

7.2 "Information, claims and comparisons must be accurate, balanced, fair, objective and unambiguous and must be based on an up-to-date evaluation of all evidence and reflect that evidence clearly. They must not mislead either directly or by implication."

Mr. Chandlers statement that, "there is no scientific evidence that Seroxat leads to addiction and dependency" is not inconsistent with the SPC. But we contend it is unfair, ambiguous and misleading, all the more so as a statement directed to a lay readership. The assertion that paroxetine is not a drug of dependence relies on [a] the lack of evidence to which EMEA/CPMP referred; and [b] a studiedly narrow and inappropriate interpretation of the definition in the 10^th edition of the International Classification of Diseases. See Appendix One.

Since publication of the ICD-10guidelines, the World Health Organisation (1998) has published a statement on "Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and withdrawal reactions," which makes it clear: [a] that dependence should be regarded as not an on or off phenomenon, but as a condition that should be measured by degree; [b] that on existing definitions, sensibly interpreted, SSRIs can and do cause dependence; and [c] that in the last analysis, the patients experience with the drug is the test of whether or not a drug causes dependence:

"There is obviously some confusion about the concept of dependence ... The simplest definition of drug dependence given by WHO is 'a need for repeated doses of the drug to feel good or to avoid feeling bad' (WHO, Lexicon of alcohol and drug terms, 1994). When the patient needs to take repeated doses of the drug to avoid bad feelings caused by withdrawal reactions, the person is dependent on the drug. Those who have difficulty coming off the drug even with the help of tapered discontinuation should be regarded as dependent, unless a relapse into depression is the reason for their inability to stop the antidepressant medication.

In general, all unpleasant withdrawal reactions have a certain potential to induce dependence and this risk may vary from person to person. Dependence will not occur if the withdrawal symptoms are so mild that all patients can easily tolerate them. With increasing severity, the likelihood of withdrawal reactions leading to dependence also increases " (WHO Drug Information, 1998)

Referring specifically to Mr. Chandlers comment that, "there have been one or two reports of discontinuation symptoms with abrupt cessation", we refer to the published evidence cited in our previous complaint. We accept the point made in the EMEA/CPMP review (1999) that, "strong evidence which would allow definitive statements about the frequency of withdrawal reactions with the different SSRIs, is not available." However, investigators have consistently reported an incidence of withdrawal problems far greater than the incidence proposed by GlaxoSmithKline. Typical figures are 3/6 cases (50%) reported by Barr et al (1994); 5/13 - 38.5% (Keuthen et al, 1994); 10/50 - 20% (Coupland et al 1996); and 5/12 - 41.6% (Bhaumik & Wildgust, 1996). One recent review concluded as follows:

"In summary, with several newer antidepressants, including, sertraline, paroxetine and venlafaxine, abrupt discontinuation after a moderate length of treatment leads to at least 1 out of 3 patients spontaneously reporting one or more discontinuation symptoms. Higher rates are reported when information on symptoms is solicited and in one study (Rosenbaum et al, 1998) approximately 2 out 3 paroxetine and sertraline recipients fulfilled criteria for a discontinuation syndrome. " (Haddad, 2001)

In addition to the aforementioned study by Rosenbaum at el (1998), we refer to the study reported by Oehrberg and associates (1995); the correspondent in the published paper is identified as Dr R Judge from SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Harlow. The investigators reported: " only 19 patients out of 55 (34.5%) who had received paroxetine reported any adverse event on discontinuation, as compared with seven out of 52 (13.5%) on placebo.

This trial is especially significant because GlaxoSmithKline indicated in response to our previous complaint (letter of 14 August 2001) that its estimate of the incidence of withdrawal reactions was substantially based on the finding that only 7 patients out of the 8,143 on its clinical trials database were reported to have experienced a withdrawal syndrome. Apart from the fact that the design of many trials on the SKB database (number unknown, but believed to be the large majority) would positively obscure evidence of the nature, incidence and severity of withdrawal - the number of patients experiencing withdrawal reactions in this one trial reported by Oehrberg and associates is over twice the number on the whole SKB clinical trials database. Not only was this trial excluded from the Company database, but it also signals an incidence of withdrawal reactions far in excess of the low levels the company implicitly claims.

Nor can the assertion that withdrawal symptoms are very rare (<1:10,000) be reconciled with evidence from spontaneous reporting. However troublesome the interpretation of these data may be, the major confounding factor is under-reporting. Yet by September 2001, the Committee on Safety of Medicines had received 1,242 reports of withdrawal reactions to paroxetine a far higher number than for any other drug on the ADROIT database. The prominence of paroxetine in the ADROIT tabulation is underlined by the analysis by Price and colleagues in the Medicines Control Agency/Committee on Safety of Medicines: "withdrawal reactions with paroxetine constitute a greater proportion of reports (5.1%) than with the other SSRIs (0.06-0.9%). (Price et al, 1996)

The same picture emerges from the data generated by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (27 January 2001), which has operational responsibility for the WHO's Programme for International Drug Monitoring. The table below identifies drugs on the Centre's database that have attracted most reports of withdrawal problems indicative of dependence. By a wide margin, paroxetine tops this list.

DRUG NAME	REPORTS
Paroxetine	2003
Venlafaxine	1058
Alprazolam	842
Sertraline	585
Hyoscine	519
Fenfluramine	450
Fluoxetine	402
Tramadol	389
Phentermine	371
Methadone	316
Lorazepam	282
Dexfenfluramine	277
Diazepam	192
Triazolam	188
Clonazepam	112

 We further object to the statement that, "there have been one or two reports of discontinuation symptoms with abrupt cessation", on the grounds that SmithKline Beecham has known for many years that the frequency of withdrawal symptoms was likely to be substantial, following studies on healthy volunteers, carried out in the 1980s: "On average about half the volunteers taking part in a group of studies specifically designed to detect withdrawal problems suffered symptoms which suggest they had become physically dependent on the drug" (Boseley, 2001). The source of this information was Dr David Healy, who had personally examined this documentation in discovery relating to a US court case. Healy (2001) reported his concerns to the Medicines Control Agency, indicating that the results of these studies showed "withdrawal syndromes occurred at a much higher rate than occur on benzodiazepines".

The further implication of the statement complained of is that withdrawal symptoms exist only when there is abrupt cessation of treatment. In our previous complaint, we requested the company to produce such relevant evidence as it had to support this assertion, but it did not respond. We have no problem accepting that gradual reduction of dosage may attenuate withdrawal problems, but clearly it does not abolish them. Gradual tapering of dosages had been employed in the three cases reported by Barr et al; in four of the five cases reported by Keuthen et al; and "the majority of cases occurred despite slowly tapered withdrawal" in the series reported by Coupland et al. See also CADRMP, 1998; DTB, 1999, below). Referring to the practice of dose tapering on cessation of treatment, on recent review concluded: "as yet there is no controlled data to recommend its effectiveness, the length of time over which it should occur or the minimum dose that one should taper to" (Haddad, 2001).

7.9 "Information and claims about side effects must reflect available evidence or be capable of substantiation by clinical experience "

We rely on the arguments and evidence set out above. We also invite the company to inspect the 1000-odd spontaneous reports from SSRI users on the Social Audit website, the large majority of which relate to (a) withdrawal and dependence problems with paroxetine (Paxil, Seroxat, Aropax) rather than other SSRIs; and (b) reactions that are unexpectedly severe, disabling and often intensely disturbing. Our website is only one of several where users so complain. We submit that such a volume of reports, describing severe problems of a kind that manufacturers routinely deny and of which many prescribers appear unaware, can and should be considered "available evidence" within the meaning of the Code. We submit in support of this complaint a selection of comments posted on our website relating to users experience of dependence of paroxetine; see Appendix Two.

20.2 "Information about medicines made available to the public .. must be presented in a balanced way and must not be misleading with respect to the safety of the product"

We rely on the arguments and evidence set out above, drawing attention also to the following Supplementary Information in the Code: "Particular care must be taken in responding to approaches from the media to ensure that the provisions of this clause are upheld.

2. "Activities or materials associated with promotion must never be such as to bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.

We recognise that the Authority regards a ruling of a breach under Clause 2 as a sign of particular censure, to be used sparingly. We nevertheless request that a breach under this provision be ruled, taking into account:

1. The outcome of our previous complaint, and the companys acceptance of that decision and "assurance that they will take all possible steps to avoid similar breaches of the IFPMA Code occurring in the future". (The remarks attributed to Mr. Chandler do not suggest that steps have been taken, but we keep an open mind on this. If the company has taken any steps, we invite them to explain what has been done.)
2. The evidence provided indicates an established pattern of unacceptable behaviour
3. That misleading statements were made to a lay rather than professional audience
4. Mr. Chandlers seniority in the company.
5. The damaging consequences of such statements for patients and prescribers alike.

In relation to this last point, we emphasise that the users comments attached in Appendix II are representative of recurrent themes: many prescribers are not aware of the significance of withdrawal and dependence problems (Young & Currie, 1997); users are not often warned about the possibility of withdrawal effects and dependence; prescribers are often unaware of the risks of mistaking withdrawal symptoms for relapse and sometimes reluctant to accept patients accounts of withdrawal symptoms, causing considerable distress; patients unable to discontinue medication are obliged to resume drug taking, much against their free will; withdrawal effects may be extremely distressing and disabling; and withdrawal and post-withdrawal effects are reported to be worse than the condition for which the drug was prescribed.

For the record, and in support of this complaint, we are again enclosing a copy of our monograph (Medawar, 1997). Please let me know if you require any further information. We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely, Charles Medawar

 

References

ADROIT: Medicines Control Agency drug analysis print for paroxetine dated 12/09/01.

L.C. Barr, W.K. Goodman, L.H. Price, Physical symptoms associated with paroxetine discontinuation (letter). Am J Psychiatry 1994 Feb, 151 (2), 289.

S. Boseley: Murder, suicide. A bitter aftertaste for the wonder depression drug, The Guardian, 11 June, 2001. See:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4201752,00.html

S. Bhaumik, H.J. Wildgust, Treatment outcomes including withdrawal phenomena with fluoxetine and paroxetine in patients with learning disabilities suffering from affective disorders (Letter), Human Psychopharmacology, 1996, 11, 337-338.

N.J. Coupland, C.J. Bell, Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Withdrawal, J. Clin. Psychopharmacol., 1996, 16, 3, 356-362

S. C. Dilsaver, Antidepressant withdrawal syndromes: phenomenology and pathophysiology, Acta Psychiatr. Scand., 1989, 79, 113-117.

EMEA/CPMP: Position Paper on Selective Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Dependency/Withdrawal Reactions, EMEA/CPMP/2775/99, (London: European Medicines Evaluation Agency, Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products, 12 April, 2000).

FDA: labelling changes for Paxil, approved 28 September 2000, posted 16 November 2000 athttp://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/2000/sep00.htm#paxil

P. Haddad, Antidepressant discontinuation syndromes, Drug Safety, 2001, 24(3), 183-197.

International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations, Self-Regulation of Marketing Practices (Geneva: IFPMA, 1997), Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (1982-2001); .

N.J. Keuthen, P. Cyr, J.A. Ricciardi, et al,. Medication withdrawal symptoms in obsessive-compulsive disorder patients treated with paroxetine. J Clin Psychopharmacol, 1994 June, 14 No 3, 206-207

C. Medawar, The Antidepressant Web, Int J Risk & Safety in Medicine 1997 October, 10, 2, 75-126. See numerous additions, 1998-2001, athttp://www.socialaudit.org.uk/5100what

S. Oehrberg, P.E. Christiansen, K. Behnke, A.L. Borup, B. Severin, J. Soegaard, H. Calberg, R. Judge, J.S. Price, P.C.Waller, S.M. Wood (Medicines Control Agency), A.V.P. Mackay (Committee on Safety of Medicines): A comparison of the post-marketing safety of four selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors including the investigation of symptoms occurring on withdrawal, Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 1996, 42, 757-763.

J F Rosenbaum, M Fava, S L Hoog, R C Ascroft, W B Krebs: Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Discontinuation Syndrome: A Randomised Clinical Trial, Biol Psychiatry, 1998, 44, 77-87.

Uppsala Monitoring Centre: printout dated 27 January 2001 of Most reported dependence drugs 68 to date"

World Health Organisation: Ethical Criteria for medicinal drug promotion (Geneva, WHO, 1988)

World Health Organisation: WHO Drug Information, 1998, 12, 3, 136-138.

World Health Organisation: International Classification of Diseases, 10^th Edition. (Geneva, WHO, 1992)

AH Young, A Currie, Physicians knowledge of antidepressant withdrawal effects: a survey, J. Clin Psychiatry, 1997, 58 (suppl 7), 28-30.

Appendix One

"A definite diagnosis of dependence should usually be made only if three or more of the following have been experienced or exhibited at some time during the previous year:

(a) a strong desire or sense of compulsion to take the substance;

(b) difficulties in controlling substance-taking behaviour in terms of its onset, termination or levels of use;

(c) a physiological withdrawal state ... when substance use has ceased or been reduced, as evidenced by the characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance; or use of the same (or a closely related substance) with the intention of relieving or avoided withdrawal symptoms

(d) evidence of tolerance, such that increased doses of the psychoactive substance are required in order to achieve effects originally produced by lower doses (clear examples of this are found in alcohol and opiate dependent individuals who may take daily dose sufficient to incapacitate or kill non-tolerant users);

(e) progressive neglect of alternative pleasures or interests because of psychoactive substance use, increased amount of time necessary to obtain or take the substance or to recover from its effects;

1. persisting with substance use despite clear evidence of overtly harmful consequences, such as harm to the liver through excessive drinking, depressive mood states consequent to periods of heavy substance use, or drug related impairment of cognitive functions; efforts should be made to determine that the user was actually, or could be expected to be, aware of the nature and extent of the harm ..."

 

18th June 2002 Stockley Park West Uxbridge Middlesex UB11 1BT Tel. +44 (0)20 8990 9000 Fax. +44 (0)20 8990 4321 http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/4633-XGSK.htm www.gsk.com

 

Mrs Heather Simmonds
Code of Practice Authority
12 Whitehall
London SW1A 2DY.

Dear Mrs Simmonds

Case AUTH/1318/5/02 Safety of Seroxat (paroxetine)

We acknowledge receipt on 22 May 2002 of a complaint made by Mr Charles Medawar on 20 May 2002 to the ABPI. The complaint related to comments attributed to Mr Alan Chandler, Director of Corporate Media UK, an employee of the GlaxoSrnithKline PLC. These comments were published in a British newspaper, The Independent (October 2001) reported by Anastasia Stephens and in a British journal, Mental Health Today (April 2002) reported by Catherine Jackson. Both articles related to adverse events claimed to be attributable to antidepressants, including Seroxat (paroxetine).

Our response to the complaint is detailed below. However, we do not consider it appropriate to discuss the interpretation of the selection of unverified comments from users of paroxetine supplied as Appendix 2 of the complaint (which has been submitted to our Clinical Safety department for review as part of our standard adverse event reporting process).

INDEPENDENT October 2001
The comment attributed to Mr Chandler in the Independent (October 2001) states (referring to paroxetine and other SSRIs) Theres no reliable scientific evidence to show they cause withdrawal symptoms or dependency. Mr Chandler corrected this in his letter of 17^th October 2001 (copy enclosed) where he stated that he was not referring to withdrawal symptoms. Contrary to what is stated in the letter of complaint he did not say in that letter that he had been correctly quoted. In response to the reporter, Mr Chandler intended to convey that SSRIs are not reliably shown to cause addiction/dependency.

Discontinuation symptoms, also referred to as withdrawal symptoms, comprise a diverse range of symptoms, but do not in themselves indicate drug dependence (1,2). Dependence is a syndrome, and diagnosis requires several other features, such as tolerance, inability to control drug use, primacy of drug taking behaviour, and continued use despite harmful consequences (1). Dependence is often used synonymously with the term addiction. In 2000, following a comprehensive review, The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medical Products (EMEA)/The Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) released a position paper on "Selective Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Dependency/Withdrawal reaction." (copy enclosed). They endorsed the conclusions of the April 1998 Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) review that had not identified evidence that SSRIs were drugs of dependence, but that the product information for all SSRIs should contain appropriate warnings about well-recognised withdrawal reactions. They noted that, following the request of the European Commission that the CPMP consider this issue, further evaluation of the clinical evidence relating to dependence associated with SSRIs was carried out by France and Germany, and that no evidence that SSRIs were drugs of dependence was found. Based on this and other evidence, the CPMP concluded that the available clinical evidence does not suggest that the SSRIs cause dependence. With respect to discontinuation or withdrawal, they recommended that the key elements of withdrawal reaction statements in the Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPC) should be harmonised throughout the European Union and recommended the following, among other things:

A statement that although withdrawal reactions may occur on stopping therapy, the available preclinical and clinical evidence does not suggest that SSRIs cause dependence.

A list of symptoms reported in association with withdrawal reactions for that product.

A statement that the majority of withdrawal reactions are mild and self-limiting.

Advice that prescribers should consider gradual dose reduction when stopping treatment.

In accordance with the recommendations of the CPMP, the Seroxat SmPC states under section 4.8 (undesirable effects),In common with other SSRIs, withdrawal symptoms have been reported on stopping treatment. The available evidence does not suggest these are due to dependence. Dizziness, sensory disturbance (eg paraesthesia), anxiety, sleep disturbances (including intense dreams), agitation, tremor, nausea, sweating and confusion have been reported following abrupt discontinuation of Seroxat. They are usually mild, self-limiting and symptomatic treatment is seldom warranted. No particular patient group appears to be at higher risk of these symptoms; it is therefore advised that when antidepressive treatment is no longer required, gradual discontinuation by dose tapering be carried out. In accordance with these principles, the relevant sections of the briefing document approved for use in October 2001 were as follows:

Addiction

Seroxat, unlike for example, smoking or alcohol, is not addictive. There are well-defined international criteria for drug dependency and addiction and Seroxat is clearly shown as being neither addictive nor causing dependence.

Discontinuation

Abrupt stopping of any antidepressant can result in a small number of patients experiencing discontinuation symptoms.

These symptoms such as dizziness are generally mild, short-lasting and self-limiting.

As recommended by The British National Formulary (BNF) and the EMEA, the likelihood of these symptoms is minimised by gradually tapering the daily dose.

Seroxats high volume of usage compared to other SSRIs means that clinicians may perceive these symptoms occur more frequently with Seroxat. It is important to remember that this is a class effect and can occur with all SSRIs.

The Seroxat SmPC states: In common with other SSRIs, withdrawal symptoms have been reported on stopping treatment. The available evidence does not suggest these are due to dependence. Dizziness, sensory disturbance (eg paraesthesia), anxiety, sleep disturbances (including intense dreams), agitation, tremor, nausea, sweating and confusion have been reported following abrupt discontinuation of Seroxat. They are usually mild, self-limiting and symptomatic treatment is seldom warranted. No particular patient group appears to be at higher risk of these symptoms; it is therefore advised that when antidepressive treatment is no longer required, gradual discontinuation by dose tapering be carried out.

MENTAL HEALTH TODAY April 2002
The comments reported in Mental Health Today (Apr 2002), were: You have a product thats been available for over 10 years and has benefited tens of millions patients. As more patients use the product globally you are bound to get these reports of bizarre side effects, says Alan Chandler, director of Corporate Media UK. There is no scientific evidence that Seroxat leads to addiction and dependency. There have been one or two reports of discontinuation symptoms with abrupt cessation, which is why our data sheets taper off the medication. The data sheet is a living document and as usage of the product increases the labelling reflects the current usage experience.

There are two specific parts of this statement that Mr Medawar discusses in his complaint. Firstly, there is no scientific evidence that Seroxat leads to addiction and dependency. Secondly, there have been one or two reports of discontinuation symptoms with abrupt cessation

With regard to the first part, we concur with Mr Medawar that this comment is consistent with the Seroxat SmPC, and clearly also with the briefing document enclosed. The relevant sections of this briefing document approved for use in December 2001 and used since then states:

Discontinuation

Stopping any antidepressant can result in some patients experiencing discontinuation symptoms. The most common of these symptoms may include dizziness, sensory disturbances, agitation, anxiety, nausea and sweating. In most cases these symptoms are mild to moderate in nature and self-limiting.

As recommended by the BNF and the EMEA, the likelihood of discontinuation symptoms is minimised by gradually tapering the daily dose.

Discontinuation symptoms are completely different to addiction or dependence. Haddad and Young, BMJ 1998 said Discontinuation symptoms do not in themselves indicate drug dependence. Dependence is a syndrome, and diagnosis requires several other features, such as tolerance, inability to control drug use, primacy of drug taking behaviour, and continued use despite harmful consequences. Antidepressants are not associated with these features and are not drugs of dependence.

The Seroxat Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) states that: "In common with other SSRIs, withdrawal symptoms have been reported on stopping treatment. The available evidence does not suggest these are due to dependence. Dizziness, sensory disturbance (eg paraesthesia), anxiety, sleep disturbances (including intense dreams), agitation, tremor, nausea, sweating and confusion have been reported following abrupt discontinuation of Seroxat. They are usually mild, self-limiting and symptomatic treatment is seldom warranted. No particular patient group appears to be at higher risk of these symptoms; it is therefore advised that when antidepressive treatment is no longer required, gradual discontinuation by dose tapering be carried out."

Addiction / Dependence.

Seroxat is not addictive. There are well-defined international criteria for drug dependency and addiction and Seroxat is clearly shown as being neither addictive nor causing dependence.

The European Regulatory Body the CPMP have recently completed (April 2000) a thorough review of safety data collected following the discontinuation of all SSRIs and other newer serotonergic antidepressant medications. The MCA (Medicines Control Agency) and CPMP have concluded that SSRIs do not cause dependency/addiction.

There has been no reliable scientific evidence from either preclinical studies, long term clinical trials or clinical experience, to suggest that Seroxat is addictive, shows dependence or is a drug of abuse.

All these statements are supported by published data and the Seroxat SmPC. As stated above, we believe that the EMEA/CPMP position paper on SSRIs and Dependency/Withdrawal Reactions (2000) provides a comprehensive and clear recommendations that were incorporated within the Seroxat SmPC and hence into our briefing document.

The anecdotal reports of adverse events reported by users of paroxetine from the Social Audit website supplied as Appendix 2 of the complaint, have been reported to our Clinical Safety department as part of our standard adverse event reporting procedure. However, we believe that Social Audit Ltds website is not a source of valid and reliable data, presenting many potential biases and containing unverified data. We do not believe it should be considered available evidence within the meaning of the Code of Practice. We hope that Social Audit Ltd advise any patients reporting adverse events, that their treating physicians should be notified in order that they can complete appropriate Yellow Card reporting of their symptoms to the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM).

With regard to the specific comment attributed to Mr Chandler that There have been one or two reports of discontinuation symptoms with abrupt cessation the position of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) with respect to discontinuation of Seroxat is clearly enunciated in the relevant briefing document (December 01) given above. We acknowledge that the statement attributed to Mr Chandler by Mental Health Today is not consistent with this briefing document. This statement was attributed to Mr Chandler as part of a long conversation with Catherine Jackson initiated by media interest in changes to the product data sheet and patient leaflet for the antidepressant Seroxat (letter to Mr Medawar 3^rd May 2002 enclosed). Mr Chandler explains in his letter to Mr Medawar, that he could not remember the precise details of the conversation with the journalist, but that if detailed figures had been required, referral to an appropriate medical expert in the company would have been made.

In summary, the statement ~there have been one or two reports of discontinuation symptoms with abrupt cessation attributed to Mr Chandler is not consistent with the briefing document. However, the information in our briefing document is consistent with our Seroxat SmPC and published data, being a factual and balanced document, which underwent the required internal approval process.

As no transcripts are available, there is difficulty in ascertaining exactly what was said in the conversation between Mr Chandler and the journalists. Nevertheless, the statement in the Independent (Oct 01), referring to paroxetine and other SSRIs, as made by Mr Chandler (see letter of 17thOctober 2001) is consistent with our SmPC and briefing document and we do not believe this statement has led to a breach of the Code of Practice. The comment reported in Mental Health Today (Apr 02) of There is no scientific evidence that Seroxat leads to addiction and dependency is consistent with the briefing document and the Seroxat SmPC. As such, we do not accept that a breach of Clauses 3.2, 7.2, 7.9 and 20.2 of the Code of Practice has occurred, with respect to that specific comment. However, the comment There have been one or two reports of discontinuation symptoms with abrupt cessation is not consistent with either the appropriate briefing document (Dec 01) nor the Seroxat SmPC.

Hence we accept that, if the statement was made by Mr Chandler, a breach of Clauses 3.2, 7.2, 7.9 and 20.2 of the Code of Practice has occurred with respect to this specific comment.

Finally, GSK has fully accepted the previous IFPMA ruling and Mr Chandler has been fully compliant with all of Mr Medawars regular requests, with appropriate written responses within adequate timelines. GSK takes this very seriously and we deny that a breach of Clause 2 of the Code of Practice has occurred.

Yours sincerely

E Gray
General Manager & Senior Vice President

CLICK HERE TO READ ON

 

	Contents page
	What's New?

http://coventryuniversity.podbean.com/2007/11/01/one-woman-a-multinational-and-a-victory-shelley-jofre-panorama/

 

2.30 in Jofre says - read a little bit in news paper about patients complaints year 2000 about Seroxat difficult to withdraw from .. Jofre found it intriguing Jofre had only just started working on Panorama at that stage

3.30 in Jofre calls SSRIs SELECTIVE Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors

4.14 Jofre knew little of how the pharmcutical industry worked

4 .30 in Ed says - lets look at antidepressant story

4 45 Jofre says although problems with whole class of antidepressants we (bbc) decided to concentrate on Seroxat Why we narrowed down on Seroxat 1 because it was made by GSK 2 all the drugs in class cause suicidal thinking on dose change 3 Seroxat had a unique problem of withdrawal BECAUSE IT WAS LONGER ACTING we decided to focus research into this drug

6.00 in - 40 min Panorama film took Shelley Jofre 8 months to make

6.10 in - Its not something you do lightly WE WERE TAKING ON the worlds second largest drug company

7.30 We were talking to the lawyer the whole way through production

9.30 in - Jofre says we took a punt on Dr David Healy

 

Leave a Reply

http://coventryuniversity.podbean.com/wp-comments-show.php>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Anti-depressant nightmare relived

Mr Hosie (left) and Mr Scott.

DEREK SCOTT has first- hand experience of the side-effects experienced by thousands of people being treated with Seroxat. Derek (36), of Linfield Street, Dundee, was addicted to the drug for almost five years and believes he has suffered permanent psychological damage by the treatment. As a result of allegedly poor guidelines from the drugs regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Derek was prescribed up to three-times the recommended dose for many years. When he tried to come off it he suffered panic attacks and nightmares, and the strain resulted in an attempt to take his own life. Since then, with the help of a cocktail of other anti-depressants and psychiatric treatment, he has been working for a ban on the drug he is convinced has ruined his life. I tried coming off it in 2004 and thats when my problems started. I had absolutely no idea that it could cause this kind of reaction. I suffered from persistent sickness, sweating, thoughts of death, nightmares and physical sensations that felt like electric shocks all over my body. While trawling the internet for information he found there were thousands of other people who had the same symptoms, and the same suspicions about the drug, as he did. He decided to start a website of his ownthe Online Seroxat Support Groupas a meeting place for other people to share their experiences. He said, The internet seems to be the best place to get people together with this type of illness. In 2005 Dereks cause was taken up by MP Stewart Hosie, who submitted a petition in his name to parliament calling for suspension of new prescriptions until the drug can be investigated. Derek has been in continual correspondence with Mr Hosie since his election to the Dundee East seat in May 2005, and the list of evidence he has compiled is kept in a file over 12 inches thick.

Email the Editor with your views

© All copyright D C Thomson & Co Ltd., 2009
Terms and Conditions

http://www.tuesday1st.blogspot.com/