Super creepy quote from Edward Scolnick, Merck's research director (proving, yet again, why drug companies are evil):
Key to his strategy was expanding the company's reach into the antidepressant market, where Merck had lagged while competitors like Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline created some of the best-selling drugs in the world. "To remain dominant in the future," he told Forbes, "we need to dominate the central nervous system."Is it too much to ask that people be in control of their own central nervous system? I mean, really.
From 2001 to 2006, the percentage of new products cut from development after Phase II clinical trials, when drugs are first tested against placebo, rose by 20 percent. The failure rate in more extensive Phase III trials increased by 11 percent, mainly due to surprisingly poor showings against placebo. Despite historic levels of industry investment in R&D, the US Food and Drug Administration approved only 19 first-of-their-kind remedies in 2007—the fewest since 1983—and just 24 in 2008. Half of all drugs that fail in late-stage trials drop out of the pipeline due to their inability to beat sugar pills.Sadly, drug companies just aren't getting enough drugs to market that work exactly the way existing drugs work. Weepingly, they are loosing profits to generics. I know, I'm sad too.
And this is even more interesting:
And yes, the drug companies are all aflutter over it. Drug companies have always been scared of the placebo phenomenon, and of course, with that effect becoming more powerful, there is more and more for them to worry about. (Just imagine if people got better without drugs!! Ah, such a travesty.)Some products that have been on the market for decades, like Prozac, are faltering in more recent follow-up tests. ...if these same drugs were vetted now, the FDA might not approve some of them. Two comprehensive analyses of antidepressant trials have uncovered a dramatic increase in placebo response since the 1980s. One estimated that the so-called effect size (a measure of statistical significance) in placebo groups had nearly doubled over that time.
It's not that the old meds are getting weaker, drug developers say. It's as if the placebo effect is somehow getting stronger.
Oddly (or maybe not?), placebo success seems to be tied to geography:
The second point isn't very surprising. Self-reporting is naturally unreliable and of course different groups of people would rate improvements, side-effects and whatnot differently. How did no one pick up on this? (Apparently drug companies have never heard of localization. How is it that software companies are up on this research and drug companies making godly money, are not?)...geographic location alone could determine whether a drug bested placebo ...By the late '90s, for example, the classic antianxiety drug diazepam (also known as Valium) was still beating placebo in France and Belgium. But when the drug was tested in the US, it was likely to fail. Conversely, Prozac performed better in America than it did in western Europe and South Africa. It was an unsettling prospect: FDA approval could hinge on where the company chose to conduct a trial.
Mistaken assumption number two was that the standard tests used to gauge volunteers' improvement in trials yielded consistent results. ...ratings by trial observers varied significantly from one testing site to another.
Lots more to read and learn from the article. What I learned is that I wish I would respond to a placebo.