No Miracle Drug for Depression
Antidepressants Lift Clouds, but Lose 'Miracle Drug' Label
By ERICA GOODE New York Times June 30, 2002
The following article was reported by Erica Goode, Melody
Petersen and Andrew Pollack and was written by Ms. Goode.
Fourteen years after Eli Lilly introduced a small green and white capsule called
Prozac, antidepressants have mushroomed from a modest market into a $12 billion
industry. And Americans, little by little, are coming to think of depression as
an illness like any other, a topic discussed on dates and at dinner parties.
But the euphoria that greeted the arrival of the generation of drugs that Prozac
heralded has faded.
Millions are helped by antidepressants, with some studies indicating that 35 to
45 percent of those who take them experience complete relief from their
symptoms. But millions more, 55 to 65 percent, are not helped nearly enough.
Some people experience no side effects, but for others, sexual dysfunction,
emotional numbing, insomnia, weight gain, restlessness and memory lapses make
the drugs unusable — or simply not worth the trouble. Many patients end up on a
merry-go-round of medication trials, switching repeatedly from one drug to
another or combining drugs to maximize their effects.
"There is no question that the drugs work," said Dr. Steven Hyman, the director
of the National Institute of Mental Health before becoming the provost at
Harvard, "but they leave a lot to be desired."
At the same time, the approaching expiration of the the exclusive patents on
many best-selling drugs of the 1990's has given pharmaceutical companies other
worries. Eli Lilly's patent on Prozac ran out last August, opening the field to
a crowd of generic equivalents and resulting in a drop of more than 80 percent
in sales of the brand-name drug.
The market for antidepressants, which in 1998 grew by 24 percent, is expected to
expand by only 5 percent this year, said Richard T. Evans, an analyst at Sanford
C. Bernstein & Company.
Scrambling to regain their competitive edge, the drug manufacturers are
searching for new molecules that are more effective and have fewer side effects.
They are tweaking the chemical structures of existing drugs and reharnessing old
standbys for new uses, marketing them for everything from social phobia to
generalized anxiety and severe premenstrual distress. Psychiatrists argue that
such conditions are real illnesses that cause real suffering. But others say the
impression often conveyed by commercials for the drugs is clear: almost anyone
could benefit from them. "The symptomatology is so broad and vague that almost
any one of us could say, yeah, that is me," said Arthur A. Levin, director of
the Center for Medical Consumers.
Yet even the most aggressive advertising is unlikely to be enough to solve the
industry's problems, analysts say. What is really needed is a new class of
drugs, one that will have as much impact — clinically and financially — as
Prozac did 14 years ago.
"The field is waiting for the next breakthrough in terms of new treatments,
through new mechanisms," said Dr. Alan Schatzberg, the chairman of psychiatry at
Stanford University School of Medicine. "That's what people are hungering for."
Several new antidepressants will reach the market soon. Lexapro, from Forest
Laboratories, maker of Celexa, is expected to reach drugstores as early as next
month, and Eli Lilly's drug Cymbalta should arrive late this year or early next.
But no breakthrough product is in sight.
The very complexity of depression as an illness, experts say, makes it unlikely
that the next Prozac will arrive soon.
The Promise in a Pill
The earliest antidepressants were discovered by accident. Iproniazid, a drug
first used for depression in the 1950's, was a treatment for tuberculosis before
doctors noticed its mood-elevating effects. Prozac, in its way, was also a
product of serendipity.
It arrived at a time when scientists were first exploring in earnest the
biological underpinnings of depression, and when organizations like the National
Alliance for the Mentally Ill and the National Depressive and Manic-Depressive
Association were working to convince Americans that depression and other serious
mental disorders were illnesses like diabetes or heart disease, not weaknesses
or failures of character.
At the same time, surveys indicated that depression was far more common than
researchers once thought. One of the most exhaustive surveys found that in any
given year, 9.5 percent of Americans met the diagnostic criteria for a mood
disorder.
Yet even as awareness increased, few drugs were available for depression. Only
two classes of antidepressants were on the market, tricyclics like Elavil and
monamine oxidase inhibitors like Parnate. Both had been in use for decades. Both
had problems that limited their use.
Tricyclics caused side effects like constipation, weight gain and, in some
cases, heart irregularities. Worse, even a small overdose could be lethal. The
monoamine oxidase inhibitors required patients to avoid cheese, red wine and
other foods that interacted with the drugs and could cause severe headaches or
even strokes.
For pharmaceutical companies, devoting much energy to marketing either class of
drugs, their patents long expired, seemed hardly worth the effort.
Prozac and the other drugs in its class — selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitors, or S.S.R.I.'s — offered several advantages over their predecessors.
They had standard dosages, making them easy to prescribe. People had taken huge
overdoses and survived. Also, their side effects appeared minimal.
Still, even Eli Lilly was surprised when its new drug attained the status of a
cultural icon, making the cover of newsmagazines and inspiring books like
"Listening to Prozac" and "Prozac Nation."
Executives at Lilly have said that during development, they envisioned sales of
$70 million a year. Instead, at Prozac's peak, sales approached $3 billion a
year.
"We underestimated the number of patients that could benefit from a drug like
Prozac," said Dr. Steven Paul, vice president of Lilly Research Laboratories.
There were in fact a lot of customers, including many who would never before
have thought of taking a drug to alleviate emotional distress.
Talk therapies have been shown to be effective for depression, especially when
combined with antidepressants. But getting Prozac did not even require seeing a
mental health professional. General practitioners wrote — and continue to write
— the majority of prescriptions. The drugs gradually became an option for the
mildly depressed, the bereaved, the stressed and the rejected.
Antidepressants are now the second-largest class of prescription drugs, their
sales exceeded only by heart medications. Last year, according to NDCHealth, a
company that tracks drug sales, 7.1 million Americans took antidepressants, an
increase of 700,000 over the year before.
The Pitfalls in a Pill
Yet even as the numbers have grown, it has become clear that the drugs are more
prone to side effects and in some cases less effective than many people assumed.
Many S.S.R.I.'s cause sexual dysfunction — loss of libido and an inability to
have orgasms — a side effect many are unwilling to put up with for any length of
time.
Other patients complain of apathy and emotional flatness.
"All it did was make me feel like I had no emotions," said Zachary Howard, 22,
of Boston, who took Zoloft for a month in high school. "I felt like a zombie."
In still other cases, the antidepressants simply quit working after months or
years. Stopped abruptly, they could cause dizziness, sensations of electrical
zapping in the brain, irritability and other unpleasant withdrawal reactions, a
problem that can be solved by tapering off very slowly.
A lawsuit filed last August against GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Paxil, another
drug in Prozac's class, claims that it deliberately did not warn of problems
that could arise if the drug was stopped too quickly.
A spokeswoman for GlaxoSmithKline said the company was "vigorously" contesting
the suit. In December, the manufacturer added a precaution to Paxil's packaging
about stopping suddenly.
There is no question that antidepressants have saved many lives. Recent studies
have linked drops in suicide rates in Hungary and Sweden, among other countries,
to an increase in the prescription of antidepressants over the last 15 years.
But a 1999 review of studies by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
in the Department of Health and Human Services found that Prozac and its cousins
had more tolerable side effects than older drugs but were no better — though
also no worse — at treating depression.
Other patients, studies show, get better but not well. Susan L., 45, a graphic
designer in Manhattan who spoke on condition that her last name not be used,
switched from an older drug to Prozac when it entered the market in the late
1980's. At first she did well. But five years later, the drug lost its potency.
In the years since, she has tried a series of drugs and drug combinations.
"I tried Zoloft, I tried Effexor, I was on Wellbutrin and Effexor for a while,
now I'm on Wellbutrin and Celexa," she said. "It's still not that great. I
couldn't say that I'm happy."
Patents, Generics and Jingles
Apart from the drugs' mixed effectiveness, the pharmaceutical companies have
another problem on their hands. Eventually, every new drug loses its exclusive
patent, which lasts 20 years from the date of application and wards off the
encroachment of generic copies that other companies can sell at a much lower
price.
In the decade and a half since Prozac arrived, patented antidepressants have
helped transform their makers into powerhouses. Forest Laboratories, the maker
of Celexa, was a little-known manufacturer of generic drugs. Now it is a darling
of Wall Street, with sales rising by 35 percent last year, most of them from
Celexa.
But Prozac's swift sales decline in the last year has given drug manufacturers a
glimpse of a dimmer future.
Even though the market is expected to improve next year, the fast-paced growth
of the 90's is not likely to return soon, according to Mr. Evans, the market
analyst. For one thing, insurance companies, like Wellpoint Health Systems, the
large California insurer, are trying to steer patients to fluoxetine, the
low-priced generic equivalent of Prozac, by charging them higher co-payments for
brand-name drugs.
Dr. Robert C. Seidman, Wellpoint's chief pharmacy officer, said the company was
giving doctors free samples of fluoxetine.
"The health care system cannot afford to pay for a brand-name drug when a
generic works just as well for a fraction of the price," Dr. Seidman said.
To keep sales growing, the industry is pouring more money than ever into
marketing and promotion. Last year, drug companies spent $1.5 billion to market
the antidepressants to doctors, according to IMS Health, another company that
monitors drug sales. They spent $200 million more on television and print
advertisements aimed at consumers, according to CMR, a firm that tracks
advertising.
The companies are also coming out with formulations that make drugs easier to
take — GlaxoSmithKline, for instance, is working on a once-a-day form of
Wellbutrin.
They are also getting antidepressants approved for new uses, creating new
advertising angles.
"It's like I never get a chance to relax," says a man in a recent commercial
advertising Paxil for treating generalized anxiety disorder. "At work, I'm tense
about stuff at home. At home, I'm tense about stuff at work."
Refining older drugs is also a sales strategy. Forest Laboratories' new drug
Lexapro is a refined version of its other antidepressant, Celexa. Both drugs
were developed by a Danish company and licensed by Forest for sale in the United
States.
Charles Triano, the company's vice president for investor relations, said, "We
believe Lexapro has better potency, fewer side effects and may work faster."
But others say the new medication's superiority has yet to be proved.
"I haven't seen any data that suggests it's an improvement in side effects and
efficacy at this point," said Dr. Dennis S. Charney, director of the mood and
anxiety disorder research program at the National Institute of Mental Health.
"But maybe when it hits the market, that will become apparent."
To make Lexapro, scientists split their older drug, Celexa, into two
mirror-image isomers or chemical compounds, then used one isomer in the new
drug.
Other companies have done this to try to reduce or eliminate side effects.
Allegra, for example, the heavily promoted allergy drug, is a split version, or
enantiomer, of Seldane, a drug taken off the market in 1997 because it could
cause heart complications.
Forest must convince doctors that half of Celexa is better than the whole.
Generic companies will be allowed to sell Celexa in early 2004, although Forest
predicts it will take another year before they get their lower-priced versions
to the pharmacies.
Once Lexapro is approved, Forest plans to dispatch its 2,150 sales
representatives to doctors' offices with free samples.
But here again, Prozac offers a cautionary tale. Two newer versions offered by
Lilly after it lost its patent — Prozac Weekly, meant to be taken once a week,
and Sarafem, prescribed for severe premenstrual distress — have not done much to
offset declining Prozac sales. Sarafem sales were $84 million last year but only
$13 million in the first quarter of 2002.
"People know that it's Prozac, just with a different name," said Dr. Leonard
Yaffe, an analyst with Banc of America Securities.
The Unknown Brain
The problem, in some ways, is simple: as much as scientists have learned about
depression, they still do not know enough to be able to aim chemical treatments
precisely.
Older theories of depression's cause were based on oversimplified notions about
how the brain worked. Researchers knew that antidepressants seemed to raise the
brain's levels of messenger chemicals called neurotransmitters, so they
theorized that depression must result from a deficiency of these chemicals. Yet
a multitude of studies failed to prove this.
Over the last two decades, helped by advances in molecular science and
technologies that offered a window on the working brain, scientists have
realized that depression is more symphony than solo, its symptoms a result of
the chattering of neurons in many brain areas, mediated by many
neurotransmitters.
Nor are these processes set off by a person's inherited vulnerability alone. Far
from being a static organ, the brain, research has made clear, is enormously
plastic, its very architecture affected by environmental influences throughout
life, including learning, stress and medication.
Studies by Dr. Bruce McEwen, director of the laboratory of endocrinology at
Rockefeller University, and others have shown that prolonged stress can
permanently damage neurons in the hippocampus, an area of the brain involved in
memory. Studies by Dr. Ronald Duman at Yale, Dr. McEwen and others show that
antidepressants stimulate the growth of hippocampal nerve cells and, in animals,
appear capable of reversing harm to the cells done by stress.
Yet scientists are far from knowing exactly what such findings mean for
depressed patients. Nor have they come close to untangling the interaction of
genetics and experience that determines whether a particular person will fall
ill.
Making matters more complicated, a consensus is growing among researchers that
depression is not a single entity.
Dr. Jerrold F. Rosenbaum, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School,
said, "There are differences in symptoms, there are differences in course, there
are differences in the age of onset and differences in the relationship to
external precipitants, whether they be seasonal changes or stress or menstrual
cycles."
This means, Dr. Rosenbaum said, that the antidepressant that works for one group
may not be the drug that works for another.
The Next `Miracle Drug'
With increasing knowledge will come the promise of significant breakthroughs.
But what is not known poses a formidable challenge to drug companies frantic to
come up with more effective and more widely tolerable treatments.
"If you found any agent that would work fairly quickly and in a large percentage
of patients," said Dr. Stephen M. Stahl, an adjunct professor of psychiatry at
the University of California at San Diego, "it would have a huge impact."
Cymbalta, Lilly's new drug, reflects researchers' suspicion that hitting two
neurotransmitters at once may be better than hitting only one. Like Effexor, a
drug introduced by Wyeth in 1994 and now one of the fastest-selling
antidepressants, Cymbalta belongs to a class called selective serotonin and
norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, or S.S.N.R.I.'s, because it affects both
neurotransmitters.
"Most of the data suggests that the more chemical systems one engages, the
bigger the bang for the buck," said Dr. Frederick Jacobsen, a clinical professor
of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University.
Other new drugs, still being tested, are entirely novel compounds, their
potential resting on a mixture of theory and trial and error.
One such class acts on a particular brain chemical, a neuropeptide known as
Substance P. No one knows exactly what Substance P does in the brain, but it is
released by intense physical pain and has been implicated in a variety of
diseases.
Because the peptide is present in brain centers tied up with emotion and stress,
scientists also suspect it plays a role in the psychic pain of depression.
Several companies are exploring drugs that block the action of Substance P,
though experts say studies have yielded inconsistent results. At least one
company, Merck, has a Substance P drug in clinical trials.
A clearer rationale underlies the development of antidepressants that block
corticotrophin releasing factor, a hormone released in the brain during stress.
Studies show that some patients who suffer from major depression also have
elevated levels of stress hormones. By interrupting the cascade of hormones that
wear away at body and brain, researchers hope they may also be able to relieve
depression. Several companies are exploring these drugs, but they are not yet in
clinical trials.
Even RU-486, the so-called abortion drug, is showing promise as a treatment for
delusional depression, one of the most serious forms of the illness, said Dr.
Schatzberg, of Stanford, who is studying the drug.
Further in the future lie medications that could home in on specific genes
regulating neuronal growth, drugs that could be tailored to an individual
patient's genetic makeup and other advances not yet conceived of, many of them
the expected fruit of the decoding of the human genome.
Yet like Prozac, experts say, each new "breakthrough" product is likely to
follow a predictable trajectory from "miracle drug" to just another useful
medication.
Perhaps this is not all bad. "It may be too much to think that there will be a
single treatment that fits all," Dr. Rosenbaum said. "I'd be happy to have lots
of new treatments that are only mini-blockbusters."
Source:
NY Times
This "Mental Health E-News" posting is a service of the New
York Ass'n of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, a statewide coalition of
people who use and/or provide community mental health services dedicated to
improving services and social conditions for people with psychiatric
disabilities by promoting their recovery, rehabilitation and rights.
To join our list, e-mail us your request and, where
appropriate, the name of your organization to
NYAPRS@aol.com.
Save these dates!
September 10 - 13, 2002
NYAPRS 20th Annual Conference Celebration
'Now More Than Ever: Hope, Healing and Recovery'
at the Nevele Grande Resort, Ellenville New York
contact: Mary McLaughlin, NYAPRS
1 Columbia Place Albany, NY 12207
(518) 436-0008; fax: (518) 436-0044
