|
contd. from
Sins of Omission
Besides pressuring researchers they fund, companies also seem
to pepper their direct-to-consumer marketing materials with only the science
that favors their products.
Makers of stimulant medications fight hard to downplay
several longstanding theories.
One theory is that consistent use of stimulants suppresses a
child's growth. Concerns increased in April when the journal Pediatrics
published a federally-funded study, the largest yet investigating the long-term
health impact stimulants have on children. That study, funded by the National
Institutes of Mental Health and known as the MTA Follow Up Study, found that
consistent use of the stimulants stunts growth in children at a rate of about
one inch every two years. The study also questioned a theory, apparently one
still promoted by drug companies, that children make up lost growth over time.
Yet some seven months after the study was published, neither
Novartis, the maker of
Ritalin, nor McNeil mention the study in their web-based
marketing materials.
An information document for prescribing physicians found on
the Concerta web site tells doctors that Concerta causes "no clinically
significant impact on growth with long-term use."
Likewise, the Ritalin website says stimulants may cause
"initial, mild slowing of growth," but tells consumers the effect is temporary,
that children will make up the lost growth and eventually reach their normal
height.
"We used large, well-designed studies to provide factual
easy-to-understand information to readers," says Denise Brashear, a spokeswoman
for Novartis. "There are hundreds of studies conducted regarding methylphenidate
treatment making it difficult to include every study on each topic."
In their written statement to AlterNet addressing questions
for this article, McNeil officials did not respond to a question regarding the
MTA Follow Up Study.
Potentially most damaging to stimulant sales is that
medications like Ritalin may not work over the long run and that behavioral
modifications may serve just as well.
According to Pelham, who is on the steering committee for the
MTA studies, much of his research, as well as data gleaned from the MTA studies,
shows the efficacy of medication declines over time.
"No drug company in its literature mentions the fact that 40
years of research says there is no long-term benefit of medications," he says.
"That is something parents need to know."
Front Groups?
The pharmaceutical industry has long donated money to patient
advocacy groups that critics say become conduits for spreading industry-friendly
information.
In the world of ADHD advocacy, CHADD, based in Landover, MD,
is an 800-pound gorilla, claiming 20,000 members and 200 affiliates, even
offering members a CHADD Visa Card. Though the organization, which also engages
in lobbying, claims to provide "science-based, evidence-based information about
ADHD" to parents and the public, critics say CHADD basically promotes stimulant
medications manufactured by its corporate donors. Pharmaceutical companies –
including Novartis and McNeil – donated a total of $674,000 in fiscal year
2002-2003, making up 17 percent of the group's budget, according to CHADD
financial documents posted on its website.
Pelham, who is currently listed by CHADD as a member of its
professional advisory board, came face to face with what he says are the group's
glaring conflicts of interest.
In 2002, after he received the CHADD Hall of Fame Award, he
was subsequently interviewed for Attention!, the organization's magazine. In the
interview, Pelham said, among other things, that stimulant drugs have serious
limitations when employed alone and at high doses. He also pointed out that
psychosocial treatments should be the treatment of first choice in ADHD, with
adjunctive medication when necessary.
But eight months later, after CHADD's board of directors
tried to quash the article, CHADD published Pelham's interview – but with large
swaths cut out, particularly his comments about the limitations of the
stimulants.
"In recent years, I have come to believe that the individuals
who advocate most strongly in favor of medication – both those from the
professional community, including the National Institutes of Mental Health, and
those from advocacy groups, including CHADD – have major and undisclosed
conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical companies that deal with ADHD
products," Pelham wrote in a foreword to the unedited version of the article he
provided AlterNet. "I believe that parents of ADHD children and the public at
large should be made aware of this situation. That is one of the points that I
was attempting to make in my interview. As I think is clear from examining the
edited sections, the CHADD CEO and board of directors did not share my
concerns."
Chadd officials say their board is not involved in any
aspects of the magazine and that some of Pelham's claims "were not
scientifically supported."
"CHADD did not withhold information because of pressure from
pharmaceutical companies," says Phyllis Anne Teeter Ellison, who chairs the
editorial advisory board for the magazine. "After extensive review and
consultation with the scientific community, CHADD took a responsible position by
not publishing some of Dr. Pelham's unsubstantiated claims that were not
supported by available data and were not supported by his colleagues on the MTA
group."
But some drug makers no doubt find the magazine interesting:
Peg Nichols, CHADD's director of communications and executive editor of
Attention!, confirmed that Shire Pharmaceuticals, makers of the stimulant
medication Adderall, buys 65,000 of the 100,000 copies each print run. Shire
sales representatives, in turn, place them in doctors' offices.
Pelhams suspects his comments in the article, while edited
heavily, were still "conservative" enough to cause problems with his
pharmaceutical industry contacts. For several years, Pelham has hosted a
conference on treatment for childhood mental health disorders for which drug
companies, including McNeil and Shire, have provided educational grants. Since
the article ran, he says his former contacts have not underwritten the
conference.
Other types of organizations are also targets for
pharmaceutical industry contributions. Concerta.net, for example, references
guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy
of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry that recommend stimulant medications like
Concerta as the first choice of treatment for children with ADHD.
Those prominent trade groups also have links to Big Pharma.
McNeil, according to a document from The American Academy of Pediatrics, has
given at least $25,000 in donations to the academy. It could not be confirmed if
AACAP receives direct donations but links do exist. Dr. Graham J. Emslie, a
professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a
consultant for McNeil, serves on the corporate contributions and research
committee for the AACAP, according to the Center for Science in the Public
Interest (CSPI).
continue page 3
top .
page 1 2
3 .
send to friend .
adhd site
map
Reviewed: 02/2006
|
REALMENTALHEALTH CARE PROVIDER DIRECTORY
Find a Local Therapist
|
|