Protest Articles Submitted:
Submitted 10/16/05 to Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in
Mental Health as a comment letter in response to: Combination
quetiapine therapy in the long-term treatment of patients with bipolar I
disorder
MC Hardoy
,
Alessandra Garofalo
,
Bernardo Carpiniello
,
JR Calabrese
and MG Carta 
Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in
Mental Health 2005, 1:7
I am very troubled by the publication and especially the
claims of this very small, open trial. First, open trials have been repeatedly
shown to be extremely susceptible to bias. That is why they are not part of
evidence-based medicine. They strongly mislead physicians into thinking that
something has been proven and, thus, alter clinical practice. That is exactly
why manufacturers love to subsidize open trials, as in this case.
The authors statement that their study showed that "quetiapine combination
therapy reduced the probability of manic/mixed and depressive relapses and
improved symptoms in patients with bipolar I disorder" is claiming that
this study proved something. It did not. An open trial can never prove
cause-effect, especially such a small trial in such a subjectively measured
condition and with no randomization to placebo and active comparators.
While I don't doubt that quetiapine may have the claimed benefits, this
particular report proved absolutely nothing.
As to the authors claim that they have no competing interest, this study was
supported by the manufacturer of quetiapine (Seroquel). I am also certain that
these authors have received many benefits from various psychiatric
pharmaceutical manufacturers over the past year including funding for other
studies and that this publication is bound to make these and similar
manufacturers more likely to give future funding to these authors. All of those
benefits, and the support for this study by Astra-Zeneca are competing
interests.
In my opinion, open trials should never be published. They have been responsible
for the recent gabapentin and topiramate scandals in which tens of thousand of
North American bipolar patients have been subjected to totally unproven and
potentially harmful therapies with no informed consent, no IRB, and no
scientific goal. At least 25% of American psychiatrists started prescribing
these two drugs after being influenced by dozens of bogus open trials, most or
all subsidized by the manufacturers. In the case of gabapentin, it resulted in a
US$200,000,000 fine against the manufacturer, the largest fine in FDA history.
Only since then have five out of five double-blind studies proven that
topiramate is worthless for the treatment of bipolar manic or mixed states (1-2)
and three out of three double-blind studies proven the same for gabapentin
(3-5). However, the manufacturer has, to date, suppressed the publication of the
unfavorable topiramate studies and the same may be true for some additional
gabapentin studies.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Radecki, M.D.
1. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Feb 16;4(1):5
2. Open-label adjunctive topiramate in the treatment of unstable bipolar
disorder. McIntyre RS, et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;50(7):415-22.
3. Gabapentin in bipolar disorder: a placebo-controlled trial of adjunctive
therapy. Gabapentin Bipolar Disorder Study Group. Pande AC, Crockatt JG, Janney
CA, Werth JL, Tsaroucha G. Bipolar Disord 2000 Sep;2(3 Pt 2):249-55.
4. Clinical predictors of response to lamotrigine and gabapentin monotherapy in
refractory affective disorders. Obrocea GV, Dunn RM, Frye MA, Ketter TA,
Luckenbaugh DA, Leverich GS, Speer AM, Osuch EA, Jajodia K, Post RM. Biol
Psychiatry 2002 Feb 1;51(3):253-60.
5. A placebo-controlled study of lamotrigine and gabapentin monotherapy in
refractory mood disorders. Frye MA, et al. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2000
Dec;20(6):607-14.