This story discusses a randomized, double-blind trial of Zyprexa for the prevention or delay of schizophrenia in high-risk young adults experiencing early symptoms of psychosis (schizophrenia is a more severe, chronic psychotic disorder). Due to potentially serious side effects, Zyprexa and similar anti-psychotic drugs are not currently FDA approved for prevention of schizophrenia in patients identified at high-risk of developing this psychotic disorder.
The story mentions that this was a small clinical trial and the idea of identifying patients at high-risk of developing a psychotic disorder and treating them with a drug like Zyprexa is still new and has several risks, with very limited long-term benefit. There is no mention of other treatment options for patients who show signs of psychosis or who go on to develop schizophrenia. The story mentions some of the harms of treatment with Zyprexa seen in this short-term trial, but there is no mention of the long-term side effects or safety of taking this medication. Diabetes and complications of the metabolic syndrome have been noted in many patients taking newer anti-psychotic medications, including Zyprexa. This may be a result of the significant weight gain from the drugs. The FDA has issued an additional warning hypoglycemia and diabetes as a result of taking Zyprexa: http://www.fda.gov/medwaTCH/SAFETY/2004/zyprexa.htm
The story lists the limited benefit of taking Zyprexa to delay psychosis after one year of treatment, but this difference was only marginally statistically significant. The story does not mention that after the medication was stopped, these patients showed more severe psychotic symptoms than when they were first recruited for the study, suggesting that while symptoms were blunted, the disorder had progressed despite anti-psychotic medication. Additionally, many of the patients did not complete the study, so from the 60 initially recruited, only 12 completed the full 2-year trial. Results from such a small number of patients would not be generalizable to a larger population of patients at high risk of developing a psychotic disorder.
There is no mention of the cost of Zyprexa and no mention of how long this medication would need to be taken to prevent a severe psychotic break in susceptible young adults. There is appropriate discussion that Zyprexa is made by Eli Lilly and that the study was partly funded by this manufacturer and the National Institute of Mental Health. Sources other than the study authors are cited and provide some perspective on the treatment and outcome of the trial.
No mention of the cost of Zyprexa and no mention of how long this medication would need to be taken to prevent a severe psychotic break in susceptible adults. These drugs cost around $200/month. Add in physician visits and monitoring for onset of diabetes, weight gain, and hyperlipidemia and you can easily come up with $300/month.
Provides some quantification of the benefit of taking Zyprexa to delay psychosis after one year of treatment, but this difference was marginally statistically significant, which is also mentioned. What the story does not report: After the medication was stopped, these patients showed more severe psychotic symptoms than when they were first recruited for the study, suggesting that while symptoms were blunted, the disorder progressed despite the use of anti-psychotic medication.
Mentions primary harms of treatment as weight gain seen in this short-term trial, but there is no mention of the long term side effects or safety of Zyprexa. Diabetes and complications of the metabolic syndrome have been noted in many patients taking newer anti-psychotic medications like Zyprexa. This may be a result of the significant weight gain from the drugs. The FDA has issued an additional warning about patients developing hypoglycemia and diabetes as a result of taking Zyprexa: http://www.fda.gov/medwaTCH/SAFETY/2004/zyprexa.htm
The story mentions the trial design and that eligibility consisted of a screening instrument and evidence of early symptoms of schizophrenia. Fewer patients taking Zyprexa converted to full psychosis during the first year of treatment, but the difference between this group and the placebo group was not statistically significant. What is not mentioned is that the trial was blinded, but there was significant weight gain among the patients who took Zyprexa. As these medications are known to cause weight gain, this may have biased the clinical assessment of these patients. Additonally, many of the patients did not complete the study, so from the 60 initially recruited, only 12 completed the full 2-year trial. Results from such a small number of patients would not be generalizable to a larger population of patients at high risk of developing a psychotic disorder and experiencing early symptoms of schziphrenia, which is mentioned in the story.
The story discusses the prevalence of schizophrenia as 3 million in the U.S. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, this number is closer to 2 million. (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/schizoph.cfm)
Mentions that Zyprexa is made by Eli Lilly and that the study was partly funded by this manufacturer (also funded by National Institute of Mental Health).
There is no mention of other treatment options for patients who show signs of psychosis or who develop schizophrenia. Psychotherapy (including cognitive behavioral therapy) in conjunction with medication has been tried with some success in other studies to help patients manage symptoms (i.e. delusions, hallucinations) and improving functioning.
Zyprexa is not FDA approved for prevention of psychosis in patients identified at high-risk. The story mentions that this was a preliminary trial and explains that the idea of identifying patients at high-risk of developing a psychotic disorder and treating them with a drug like Zyprexa is still very new, controversial and has several risks, with very limited long-term benefit.
The story mentions that this is a clinical trial. Anti-psychotic drugs are not typically used in clinical practice for the prevention or reduction in severity of psychotic episodes because of the potential for harmful side effects.
No evidence this story relies on a press release. Sources other that the study authors are cited and provide some perspective on the treatment and outcome of the trial.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like