Board index » cardiology » A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

2007-06-24 11:07:50 PM
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children
With Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Published online before print June 14, 2007
(Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2007, doi:10.1161/
ATVBAHA.107.145151)
H. J. Avis ; M. N. Vissers ; E. A. Stein ; F. A. Wijburg ; M. D.
Trip ; J. J.P. Kastelein ; and B. A. Hutten *
Quote
From the Departments of Vascular Medicine (H.J.A., M.N.V., M.D.T.,
J.J.P.K.), Pediatrics (F.A.W.), and Clinical Epidemiology,
Biostatistics, and Bioinformatics (B.A.H.), Academic Medical Centre,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and the Metabolic and Atherosclerosis
Research Centre (E.A.S.), Cincinnati, Ohio.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
b.a.hutten@amc.uva.nl.
Objective--Functional and morphological changes of the arterial wall
already present in young children with heterozygous familial
hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) suggest that treatment should be initiated
early in life to prevent premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular
disease. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and
particularly safety of statin therapy in children with HeFH.
Methods and Results--We performed a meta-analysis of randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating statin therapy in
children aged 8 to 18 years with HeFH. Six studies (n=798 children)
with 12 to 104 weeks of treatment were included. Total cholesterol,
LDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B were significantly reduced,
whereas HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein A1 were significantly
increased by statin therapy. No statistically significant differences
were found between statin- and placebo-treated children with respect
to the occurrence of adverse events (RR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.25),
sexual development (RR of advancing 1 stage Tanner classification
0.96; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.17), muscle toxicity (RR of CK 10 times the
upper limit of normal [ULN] 1.38; 95% CI: 0.18 to 10.82), or liver
toxicity (RR of 3 times the ULN for ASAT 0.98; 95% CI: 0.23 to 4.26
and for ALAT 2.03; 95% CI: 0.24 to 16.95). We found a minimal
difference in growth in favor of the statin group (0.33 cm; 95% CI:
0.03 cm to 0.63 cm).
Conclusion--In addition to the fact that statin treatment is
efficacious, our results support the notion that statin treatment in
children with HeFH is safe. Thus, even though further studies are
required to assess lifelong safety, statin treatment should be
considered for all children aged 8 to 18 with HeFH.
-
 

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

x-no-rchive: yes
MarilynMann wrote:
Quote
Conclusion--In addition to the fact that statin treatment is
efficacious, our results support the notion that statin treatment in
children with HeFH is safe. Thus, even though further studies are
required to assess lifelong safety, statin treatment should be
considered for all children aged 8 to 18 with HeFH.

Since we already know that adrenal suppressive drugs cause growth
abnormalities (among other bad stuff) in children and that statins
suppress HPA function, but not how much, this is a heinous conclusion.
Susan
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

convicted neighbor Susan wrote:
Quote
MarilynMann wrote:

>Conclusion--In addition to the fact that statin treatment is
>efficacious, our results support the notion that statin treatment in
>children with HeFH is safe. Thus, even though further studies are
>required to assess lifelong safety, statin treatment should be
>considered for all children aged 8 to 18 with HeFH.

Since we already know that adrenal suppressive drugs cause growth
abnormalities (among other bad stuff) in children and that statins
suppress HPA function, but not how much, this is a heinous conclusion.
Actually, the conclusion that a particular treatment should be
considered (ie weighing risk versus benefit) is a standard non-
commital recommendation that only the prejudiced might believe is
particularly heinous.
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict
you:
HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
For this you will remain in my prayers, dear Susan whom I love
unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
-

med cardiology
All aspects of cardiovascular diseases

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

I read this article. They admit that the optimal age to start statin
treatment in kids with heFH is unknown. They also say that "the
effect of lipid lowering treatment in childhood on CVD later in life"
is unclear. They call for more randomized clinical trials "on
(surrogate) clinical end points such as IMT and, ideally, on
cardiovascular events and death" in order to "clarify these issues."
It would have been interesting if they had specified what kind of
clinical trials they had in mind. In their meta-analysis, they only
included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. A
placebo-controlled trial of statin treatment in heFH starting in
childhood and continuing for enough years that CVD events and
mortality could be used as endpoints would appear to be unethical,
even if it was otherwise practical. Even men with heFH don't usually
start having CVD events until their thirties or later (untreated).
So, presumably, that is not what they are proposing.
If they are thinking of a trial looking at statin treatment started at
different ages (e.g., age 10, 15, 20), that might be ethical but would
still have to be a very lengthy trial in order to use CVD events and
mortality as endpoints. It just doesn't seem practical to me.
I think the best we are going to get is a retrospective study
comparing kids with heFH who started statin treatment at different
ages (for whatever reason) and trying to control for the differences
between the groups. That won't be feasible until some years from now,
though. Such a study would also look at adverse events.
The state of current knowledge is that the benefits and risks of
starting statin treatment in childhood are both unknown. In the short
term (the longest trials so far have been 104 weeks) it appears to be
safe. In addition, the one double-blind, randomized, placebo-
controlled trial that used IMT as an endpoint found a benefit for the
treatment group. Whether starting statin treatment in childhood will
really make a difference in terms of reducing clinical events and
mortality in adulthood is just not known. My guess is that any
difference between groups where the age of treatment initiation
differs by just a few years (5 years, say) is going to be small, but
that's just my opinion.
As you would expect, the argument for starting treatment early is
stronger for men. The figure I recall seeing is that age of first CVD
event in heFH is 9 years earlier, on average, in men.
Marilyn
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

x-no-archive: yes
MarilynMann wrote:
Quote
The state of current knowledge is that the benefits and risks of
starting statin treatment in childhood are both unknown. In the short
term (the longest trials so far have been 104 weeks) it appears to be
safe. In addition, the one double-blind, randomized, placebo-
controlled trial that used IMT as an endpoint found a benefit for the
treatment group. Whether starting statin treatment in childhood will
really make a difference in terms of reducing clinical events and
mortality in adulthood is just not known. My guess is that any
difference between groups where the age of treatment initiation
differs by just a few years (5 years, say) is going to be small, but
that's just my opinion.
Marilynn, my biggest concern is that studies on kids will go on for
years, decades, and that not until a non profit entity takes a look at
unmassaged data will we find out that none of the claimed benefits were
real, and none of the risks accurately tallied.
Think Rezulin, LymeRix, Vioxx, HRT...
Susan
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

On Jun 25, 9:56 am, Susan <neverm...@nomail.com>wrote:
Quote

Marilynn, my biggest concern is that studies on kids will go on for
years, decades, and that not until a non profit entity takes a look at
unmassaged data will we find out that none of the claimed benefits were
real, and none of the risks accurately tallied.

Think Rezulin, LymeRix, Vioxx, HRT...

If you are saying that studies sponsored by governmental or nonprofit
entities are preferable to studies sponsored by drug companies, I
would agree.
The two studies in pediatric patients with heFH that I know of that
are currently underway are both sponsored by drug companies.
1. A study of colesevelam in kids with heFH who are on a statin or
who are treatment-naive to lipid-lowering therapy. Endpoints relate
to percentage change in LDL. Sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo.
2. A study of rosuvastatin vs. placebo. Primary endpoint is percent
change in LDL from baseline to end of treatment phase (12 weeks).
Secondary endpoints are percent change in LDL and other lipids from
baseline to week 6 and at week 12. Also, percent control rate based
on achievement of LDL target of <110. There is a 40-week open-label
follow-up. Sponsor: AstraZeneca.
Neither of these studies seems that interesting to me.
Marilyn
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

x-no-archive: yes
MarilynMann wrote:
Quote
The two studies in pediatric patients with heFH that I know of that
are currently underway are both sponsored by drug companies.

1. A study of colesevelam in kids with heFH who are on a statin or
who are treatment-naive to lipid-lowering therapy. Endpoints relate
to percentage change in LDL. Sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo.
Sickening that children would be unnecessarily exposed to a toxic
substance to reach a measurable endpoint that's pretty meaningless in
terms of their health.
Quote

2. A study of rosuvastatin vs. placebo. Primary endpoint is percent
change in LDL from baseline to end of treatment phase (12 weeks).
Secondary endpoints are percent change in LDL and other lipids from
baseline to week 6 and at week 12. Also, percent control rate based
on achievement of LDL target of <110. There is a 40-week open-label
follow-up. Sponsor: AstraZeneca.
*SIGH*
Quote

Neither of these studies seems that interesting to me.
They interest me the way any child abuse does.
Susan
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

On Jun 25, 2:19 pm, Susan <neverm...@nomail.com>wrote:
Quote
x-no-archive: yes

MarilynMann wrote:
>The two studies in pediatric patients with heFH that I know of that
>are currently underway are both sponsored by drug companies.

>1. A study of colesevelam in kids with heFH who are on a statin or
>who are treatment-naive to lipid-lowering therapy. Endpoints relate
>to percentage change in LDL. Sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo.

Sickening that children would be unnecessarily exposed to a toxic
substance to reach a measurable endpoint that's pretty meaningless in
terms of their health.



>2. A study of rosuvastatin vs. placebo. Primary endpoint is percent
>change in LDL from baseline to end of treatment phase (12 weeks).
>Secondary endpoints are percent change in LDL and other lipids from
>baseline to week 6 and at week 12. Also, percent control rate based
>on achievement of LDL target of <110. There is a 40-week open-label
>follow-up. Sponsor: AstraZeneca.

*SIGH*



>Neither of these studies seems that interesting to me.

They interest me the way any child abuse does.

Susan
Well, they are just trying to sell their products. The results seem
fairly unimportant. I don't care if they get their LDL down to 70.
In addition, trials of bile acid sequestrants with clinical endpoints
did not show favorable results on total mortality.
Marilyn
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

In article <1182795798.837861.35080@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
MarilynMann <mannm@comcast.net>wrote:
Quote
Well, they are just trying to sell their products.
I find this a troubling statement.
I'd prefer they are just trying to provide viable health care choices.
Not much different in context but so much more humane some how.
I guess health care as a business rules.
Bill who longs for first do no harm to rule.
--
S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

On Jun 25, 2:37 pm, William Wagner <not-to-here-william...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote
Well, they are just trying to sell their products.

I find this a troubling statement.

I'd prefer they are just trying to provide viable health care choices.
I was speaking of their motivation, which relates primarily to
maximizing their profits. Whether their products are beneficial or
not is a separate question. Personally, I am not in favor of using
bile acid sequestrants in children with high cholesterol because I
think the benefits, if they exist at all, are minimal. I think it is
better to treat them with statins if you are going to treat them at
all.
Quote

Not much different in context but so much more humane some how.
As long as we call a spade a spade.
Quote
I guess health care as a business rules.
We live in a capitalist society. In general that is a good thing, but
government regulation and ethical standards are necessary also.
Quote
Bill who longs for first do no harm to rule.
Good luck with that.

Marilyn
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

MarilynMann wrote:
Quote
On Jun 25, 2:19 pm, Susan <neverm...@nomail.com>wrote:
>MarilynMann wrote:
>They interest me the way any child abuse does.
>
>Susan


Well, they are just trying to sell their products. The results seem
fairly unimportant. I don't care if they get their LDL down to 70.
In addition, trials of bile acid sequestrants with clinical endpoints
did not show favorable results on total mortality.

Marilyn
Actually, I strongly doubt that any drug company is very interested in
studying statins in children with FH so as to boost their profits. Some
may have decided to do so for one reason or another, but it's hard to
see how there is much upside profit benefit (not that many potential
patients), compared to the downside risk that the drugs will turn out to
be harmful in children.
So even if you want to take the position that all drug-company sponsored
research is tainted, if I were a profit-maximizing drug company I'd
rather not study this at all or I'd try to tip the results to show no
benefit in children. (I'm not such a conspiracy theorist as to think
they would actually do such a thing.)
--
David Rind
drind@caregroup.harvard.edu
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

On Jun 25, 6:32 pm, David Rind <d...@caregroup.harvard.edu>wrote:
Quote

Actually, I strongly doubt that any drug company is very interested in
studying statins in children with FH so as to boost their profits. Some
may have decided to do so for one reason or another, but it's hard to
see how there is much upside profit benefit (not that many potential
patients), compared to the downside risk that the drugs will turn out to
be harmful in children.

So even if you want to take the position that all drug-company sponsored
research is tainted, if I were a profit-maximizing drug company I'd
rather not study this at all or I'd try to tip the results to show no
benefit in children. (I'm not such a conspiracy theorist as to think
they would actually do such a thing.)

I did not mean to say that all drug company sponsored research is
tainted. Sorry about that.
I do not think the market is limited to kids with FH. There are also
kids who are considered at risk of early cardiovascular disease due to
obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, HIV infection, kidney disease,
lipid disorders other than FH, and so forth. The guidelines that have
come out are not limited to kids with FH. See McCrindle et al., Drug
Therapy of High-Risk Lipid Abnormalities in Children and
Adolescents . . . Circulation 2007;115:1948-1967. They may do the
research first in kids with FH but the potential market is bigger. I
was just trying to be realistic. Drug companies are in business to
make money, like all other companies.
I am not necessarily against using statins in kids under some
circumstances. I just think that everyone should be upfront that the
proof that you are reducing cardiovascular events by doing so is not
there yet. It may be reasonable to assume that you are, but it is not
proven. You yourself have frequently expressed skepticism about
relying on surrogate endpoints. As I noted, the authors of this meta-
analysis do say that: "Although the relation between elevated LDL-C
and CVD and the effect of lipid lowering treatment on CVD is evident,
the effect of lipid lowering treatment in childhood on CVD later in
life is not as clear."
Studies of lipid-lowering medications in kids with FH are not new.
They did them with bile acid sequestrants first, of course. They have
been doing them with statins for some years now. One of the trials
included in this meta-analysis was done in 1996. The new
recommendations are to use statins as first-line treatment.
I am not so sure that the drug companies are that worried about
adverse events, given the favorable results of the studies that have
already taken place.
Marilyn
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

MarilynMann wrote:
Quote
On Jun 25, 6:32 pm, David Rind <d...@caregroup.harvard.edu>wrote:

>Actually, I strongly doubt that any drug company is very interested in
>studying statins in children with FH so as to boost their profits. Some
>may have decided to do so for one reason or another, but it's hard to
>see how there is much upside profit benefit (not that many potential
>patients), compared to the downside risk that the drugs will turn out to
>be harmful in children.
>
>So even if you want to take the position that all drug-company sponsored
>research is tainted, if I were a profit-maximizing drug company I'd
>rather not study this at all or I'd try to tip the results to show no
>benefit in children. (I'm not such a conspiracy theorist as to think
>they would actually do such a thing.)
>


I did not mean to say that all drug company sponsored research is
tainted. Sorry about that.
I was really replying to Susan's post, not Marilyn's.
A major problem with learning whether any medications (not just
lipid-lowering medications) work in children and pregnant women is that
drug companies see little upside in learning the answer and lots of
downside risk from litigation.
Nothing I was writing was meant to imply that I think the benefits of
statins have been proven in children with FH. Just that I don't think we
need to worry that drug companies will be going out of their way to rig
studies to falsely show such benefits.
There are lots of people with an interest in positive study results
unconnected to drug companies, so this is not meant to suggest that
others (authors, societies, granting agencies) won't try to spin
surrogate endpoints as convincing proof of benefit in children.
--
David Rind
drind@caregroup.harvard.edu
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

x-no-archive: yes
David Rind wrote:
Quote
I was really replying to Susan's post, not Marilyn's.

A major problem with learning whether any medications (not just
lipid-lowering medications) work in children and pregnant women is that
drug companies see little upside in learning the answer and lots of
downside risk from litigation.
That hasn't been my, admittedly limited, observation, though. Even with
pre-trial safety concerns raised by experts, SKB pushed through to
pediatric trials of LymeRix, for example. The vaccine was pulled from
the market not long after it was introduced, due to the number of people
made ill and even crippled by it. It also didn't work.
Susan
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

On Jun 25, 11:23 pm, David Rind <d...@caregroup.harvard.edu>wrote:
Quote
A major problem with learning whether any medications (not just
lipid-lowering medications) work in children and pregnant women is that
drug companies see little upside in learning the answer and lots of
downside risk from litigation.
Yes. I don't know if you follow this kind of thing, but the number of
prescriptions for psychiatric medications for kids has been growing,
including atypical antipsychotics. So far as I know, none of the
atypicals have been approved for use in children, and evidence for
their safety and efficacy in children is not that strong.
Whether pregnant women should be prescribed antidepressants is another
big issue. I heard a rumor that some studies on this are about to
come out.
Quote
There are lots of people with an interest in positive study results
unconnected to drug companies, so this is not meant to suggest that
others (authors, societies, granting agencies) won't try to spin
surrogate endpoints as convincing proof of benefit in children.

Looking at this more broadly, I get the impression that there are
differences of opinion between people who think we should treat people
early on to prevent subclinical atherosclerosis and other people who
think the value of this approach has not been proven.
Marilyn
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

On Jun 25, 6:32 pm, David Rind <d...@caregroup.harvard.edu>wrote:
Quote


Actually, I strongly doubt that any drug company is very interested in
studying statins in children with FH so as to boost their profits. Some
may have decided to do so for one reason or another, but it's hard to
see how there is much upside profit benefit (not that many potential
patients), compared to the downside risk that the drugs will turn out to
be harmful in children.

So even if you want to take the position that all drug-company sponsored
research is tainted, if I were a profit-maximizing drug company I'd
rather not study this at all or I'd try to tip the results to show no
benefit in children. (I'm not such a conspiracy theorist as to think
they would actually do such a thing.)

. That the subject of this study effects such a small number of
children as to be economically unimportant is probably true: but just
as statin studies showing benefit in high -risk population has been
expanded to a point where in my opinion most people taking statins
probably would not be if explained the actual benefits and risk. I can
easily see this type of logic being used to do the same in
children ;that would be very economically important. Drug company bias
in studies is an unfortunate fact of life.When comparison studies are
30 times more likely to favor the product of the company paying for
the study one must question objectivity. The unfortunate fact is that
recently the ethics of this industry have come under serious attack.
Vioxx and the Vigor study read the NEJM editotial on this as I'm sure
you have. The problem is much wider than Vioxx. Drug companies have a
compelling interest in positive studies and their connection to
advisory groups can not be overstated. The group that recommends
statin use had I believe 11 members; 7 or 8 had financial ties to the
companies whose product they are recommending. Just how important are
those considerations. When the FDA advisory board voted on
reintroducing Vioxx those who had no connection voted about 2 to 1
against those who had financial connections 9-1 for. Thanks Vince
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

MarilynMann wrote:
<snip>
Quote
Looking at this more broadly, I get the impression that there are
differences of opinion between people who think we should treat people
early on to prevent subclinical atherosclerosis and other people who
think the value of this approach has not been proven.
There are no differences in opinion about whether to prevent
subclinical atherosclerosis with everyone agreeing that subclinical
atherosclerosis is the substrate for most heart attacks and strokes
that kill people outright.
The differences in opinion arise on the topic of **how** to prevent
subclinical atherosclerosis.
It remains wiser to prevent subclinical atherosclerosis by addressing
as directly as possible exactly what would cause this problem in any
given individual.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier)
than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

On Jun 26, 8:38 am, MarilynMann <m...@comcast.net>wrote:
Quote

Looking at this more broadly, I get the impression that there are
differences of opinion between people who think we should treat people
early on to prevent subclinical atherosclerosis and other people who
think the value of this approach has not been proven.

An example of the first point of view is the following: Tsimikas &
Witztum, Shifting the diagnosis and treatment of atherosclerosis to
children and young adults: a new paradigm for the 21st century, J Am
Coll Cardiol, 2002; 40:2122-2124. content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/40/12/2122.
Marilyn
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

In article <1182898225.026418.89500@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
MarilynMann <mannm@comcast.net>wrote:
Quote
On Jun 26, 8:38 am, MarilynMann <m...@comcast.net>wrote:
>
>Looking at this more broadly, I get the impression that there are
>differences of opinion between people who think we should treat people
>early on to prevent subclinical atherosclerosis and other people who
>think the value of this approach has not been proven.
>


An example of the first point of view is the following: Tsimikas &
Witztum, Shifting the diagnosis and treatment of atherosclerosis to
children and young adults: a new paradigm for the 21st century, J Am
Coll Cardiol, 2002; 40:2122-2124.
content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/40/12/2122.

Marilyn
Yes everyone is sick and we can fix it at the sperm and egg level.
Something to fix external of course and make money on it so that the
cattle can handle the increase of corn consumption.
Oh wrong species.
Bill
--
S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

Backlash on bipolar diagnoses in children
MGH psychiatrist's work stirs debate
By Scott Allen, Globe Staff | June 17, 2007
No one has done more to convince Americans that even small children
can suffer the dangerous mood swings of bipolar disorder than Dr.
Joseph Biederman of Massachusetts General Hospital.
Quote
From his perch as one of the world's most influential child
psychiatrists, Biederman has spread far and wide his conviction that
the emotional roller coaster of bipolar disorder can start "from the
moment the child opened his eyes" at birth. Psychiatrists used to
regard bipolar disorder as a disease that begins in young adulthood,
but now some diagnose it in children scarcely out of diapers, treating
them with powerful antipsychotic medications based on Biederman's
work.
"We need to treat these children. They are in a desperate state,"
Biederman said in an interview, producing a video clip of a tearful
mother describing the way her preschool daughter assaulted her before
the child began treatment for bipolar disorder. The chief of pediatric
psychopharmacology at Mass. General, he compares his work to
scientific break throughs of the past such as the first vaccinations
against disease.
But the death in December of a 4-year-old Hull girl from an overdose
of drugs prescribed to treat bipolar disorder and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder has triggered a growing backlash against
Biederman and his followers. Rebecca Riley's parents have been charged
with deliberately giving the child overdoses of Clonidine, a
medication sometimes used to calm aggressive children. Still, many
wondered why a girl so young was being treated in the first place with
Clonidine and two other psychiatric drugs, including one not approved
for children's use. Riley's psychiatrist has said she was influenced
by the work of Biederman and his protege, Dr. Janet Wozniak.
"They are by far the leading lights in terms of providing leadership
in the treatment of children who have disorders such as bipolar," said
J. W. Carney Jr., lawyer for Dr. Kayoko Kifuji, a Tufts-New England
Medical Center psychiatrist who temporarily gave up her medical
license after Riley died on Dec. 13, 2006. "Dr. Kifuji subscribes to
the views of the Mass. General team."
Part of the criticism of Biederman speaks to a deeper issue in
psychiatry: the extensive financial ties between the drug industry and
researchers. Biederman has received research funding from 15 drug
companies and serves as a paid speaker or adviser to seven of them,
including Eli Lilly & Co. and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which make the
multi billion-dollar antipsychotic drugs Zyprexa and Risperdal,
respectively. Though not much money was earmarked for bipolar
research, critics say the resources help him advance his aggressive
drug treatment philosophy.
Numerous psychiatrists say Riley's overdose suggests that bipolar
disorder is becoming a psychiatric fad, leaving thousands of children
on risky medications based on symptoms such as chronic irritability
and aggressiveness that could have other causes. Riley's father, for
example, had only recently returned to the home after being accused of
child abuse, according to police. Since the girl's death, state
officials have stepped up a review of the 8,343 children taking the
latest antipsychotic medications under the Medicaid program for
conditions including bipolar disorder, to be sure the treatment is
appropriate.
Psychiatrists too often prescribe these medications, which carry side
effects such as weight gain and heart disease risk, without addressing
problems in the children's lives, said Dr. Gordon Harper, director of
child and adolescent services at the state Department of Mental
Health. He likened the approach to "tuning the piano while the subway
is going by."
Aggressive treatment
Biederman's critics chide him for not speaking out against misuses of
a diagnosis that he has helped inspire. Among leading authorities on
bipolar disorder, the Mass. General team has proposed the most
aggressive treatment for the broadest group of children, they say, and
Biederman should take responsibility when treatment goes wrong. At a
conference on bipolar disorder at Pittsburgh's Point Park University
last weekend, one speaker, Dr. Lawrence Diller, a California
behavioral pediatrician, contended that Biederman bears some blame for
Riley's death.
"I find Biederman and his group to be morally responsible in part,"
said Diller, whose popular book, "Running on Ritalin," accused
psychiatrists of over treating another childhood condition, attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder. "He didn't write the prescription, but
he provided all the, quote, scientific justification to address a
public health issue by drugging little kids."
Biederman rejects the idea that Riley's death is a cautionary tale,
accusing critics of exploiting a tragedy to fan fears about
psychiatry, a profession that has long faced prejudice. "The fact that
she had XY drug or XY treatment is irrelevant to what happened. . . .
If this child had the same outcome from treatment for asthma or
seizures, we wouldn't have this frenzy," said Biederman in an
interview at Mass. General's Cambridge mental health clinic.
Though Biederman acknowledges that distinguishing bipolar disorder
from ordinary crankiness and flights of fancy in young children is
challenging, he insists there is no ambiguity in the patients at his
practice. "People have to wait a long time to see me or my
colleagues. . . . It's not that somebody comes to me after their child
has a temper tantrum. They do things for years that are dangerous.
These are things that profoundly affect the child," said Biederman,
putting them at risk of academic failure or even suicide.
Biederman dismisses most critics, saying that they cannot match his
scientific credentials as co author of 30 scientific papers a year and
director of a major research program at the psychiatry department that
is top-ranked in the "US News & World Report" ratings.
The critics "are not on the same level. We are not debating as to
whether [a critic] likes brownies and I like hot dogs. In medicine and
science, not all opinions are created equal," said Biederman, a native
of Czechoslovakia who came to Mass. General in 1979 after medical
training in Argentina and Israel. He now lives in Brookline.
Struggle for research funds
Biederman's thinking on bipolar disorder grew out of his work in the
early 1990s, when he observed that many children referred to Mass.
General's psychiatric clinic seemed to have periods where they were
extremely aggressive, deeply depressed, or angry. And they were not
getting better from taking medications such as Ritalin, which is
prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
At the time, psychiatrists considered bipolar disorder a condition
that typically revealed itself around age 20, and rarely in children
under 12, but Biederman believed that many of his patients met the
definition normally applied to adults. Working with Wozniak, he
published an influential paper in 1995 reporting that one out of six
children at his clinic might be bipolar and that the rate was even
higher among children with ADHD.
Biederman was already quite successful as an ADHD researcher,
establishing close ties with companies that manufactured drugs such as
Ritalin to fund research projects that the federal government would
not pay for. He also received payments for giving speeches about
mental health issues and serving on scientific advisory boards that
typically meet a few times annually to discuss research. He declined
to say how much he receives, but said that all of the income was
approved by both Harvard Medical School and the hospital.
Biederman's boss said he does not believe the money affects
Biederman's judgment.
"I think a pharma person would not dare to tell Joe what to say,"
wrote Dr. Jerrold Rosenbaum , chief of psychiatry at Mass. General, in
an e-mail. "And if they made that mistake, it would be only
once. . . . For Joe, it is his ideas and mission that drive him, not
the fees."
Biederman said he quickly discovered that drug companies were less
interested in bipolar disorder than the more established ADHD. He and
Wozniak, who did not respond to a request for an interview, struggled
to get funding for research on bipolar children. "The more
controversial a diagnosis is, the harder it is to get funding from
conventional sources," he explained.
Contrasting viewpoints
Occasionally, they received small grants from drug companies or
private philanthropies to test drugs on children, but Biederman admits
these studies are not enough to prove the drugs are safe and
effective. Nonetheless, the Mass. General studies were enormously
influential: their 2001 study, in which 23 children diagnosed as
bipolar received the drug Zyprexa for eight weeks, became one of the
most frequently quoted articles in the history of the Journal of Child
and Adolescent Psychopharmacology. The study showed that the drug
eased outbreaks of aggression, though children typically gained more
than 10 pounds.
Biederman was disappointed that he could not do more comprehensive
studies, but he saw no reason to delay treatment. "At least the line
of drugs I'm talking about gives some relief," he said. "The only way
to understand the side effects is in the context of the seriousness of
the illness."
As bipolar disorder received increasing media attention, Biederman and
Wozniak's research was often cited as the scientific rationale for
diagnosing and treating the disease aggressively. Another leading
researcher, Dr. Barbara Geller of Washington University in St. Louis,
adopted a more restrictive view, requiring that children have a series
of specific symptoms such as reduced need for sleep before she would
diagnose the disorder. But the Mass. General team used broader
categories, saying that children who are extremely irritable or
aggressive might be bipolar. Skeptics said those symptoms were too
common, leaving too much room for dispute over who is really sick.
Dr. Biederman's staff "can do the same diagnostic interview on 100
children and come up with five or 20 bipolar disorders, and I might do
the same thing and find only one or none," said Dr. Jon McClellan , a
psychiatrist at the University of Washington who chaired a panel of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry that recently
concluded there is no proof that children under 6 can be diagnosed
with the disorder. He says he has received no money from the
pharmaceutical industry for years.
A surge in diagnoses
Biederman's work helped fuel a surge in the number of children
diagnosed with bipolar disorder over the past 15 years. A national
study of community hospitals found that the percentage of mentally ill
children diagnosed as bipolar quadrupled from 1990 to 2000.
The rapid rise raised concerns at the National Institute of Mental
Health, prompting its top officials to convene leading specialists,
including Biederman, to urge them to come up with diagnosis and
treatment standards. The resulting guidelines, released in 2001,
acknowledged that Biederman was right: Bipolar disorder can strike
before puberty. However, the guidelines also stated that identifying
the disease among children is challenging because normal children are
prone to be irritable, aggressive, or giddy.
Dr. Steven Hyman, who was then director of the mental health institute
and is now provost at Harvard University, said he remains very
concerned about the growing use of "big gun" antipsychotic drugs such
as Zyprexa, Risperdal, and Seroquel on children. In the Massachusetts
Medicaid program, the number of people under 18 receiving at least one
of the "atypical antipsychotic" drugs rose from 6,943 in 2002 to 9,123
in 2005, a 31 percent jump, before declining to 8,343 in 2006. Hyman
says that none of the drugs has the approval of the Food and Drug
Administration for use in bipolar children, and doctors prescribe them
based on their individual judgment.
"We don't know the first thing about safety and efficacy of these
drugs even by themselves in these young ages, let alone when they are
mixed together," said Hyman.
Rebecca Riley's treatment
Kifuji was careful in treating Rebecca Riley, meeting the child six
times before diagnosing bipolar disorder, according to Carney. Based
on the child's behavior and family history, Kifuji prescribed three
drugs to the 3-year-old child, including the antipsychotic medication
Seroquel and Clonidine, a high blood pressure medicine that is often
prescribed to calm aggressive children. Last year, Clonidine was
prescribed to 1,195 children under age 7 served by the Massachusetts
Medicaid program, including Riley.
Police charge that her parents, Carolyn and Michael Riley , repeatedly
convinced Kifuji to give them extra Clonidine, ultimately accumulating
dozens of extra pills that they used to control the little girl. Long
before the child finally died on the floor beside her parents' bed,
the police report said, teachers and school nurses noticed that she
had become lethargic like a "floppy doll" on a nurse's lap.
Carney said his client, who is not practicing while the investigation
continues, did nothing wrong in writing the prescriptions for the
girl. Although some were shocked that the child was taking so much
medication, Carney said Kifuji was practicing mainstream psychiatry
for a very troubled child. He observed that Biederman's "research and
teaching validates Dr. Kifuji's work with patients."
Scott Allen can be reached at allen@globe.com.
?Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
* * *
Top-ranked by US News & World Report! I'm impressed!
Marilyn
-

Re:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Therapy in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

Here's more on Dr. Biederman and friends from the Carlat Psychiatry
blog:
Monday, June 25, 2007
Announcing the "Doctors for Dollars" Award
It's high time that doctors receive recognition for their efforts to
partner with the pharmaceutical industry in creating educational
programs. The Doctors for Dollars award will be given on a periodic
basis to physicians, medical education companies, and pharmaceutical
firms in recognition of outstanding achievement in masking promotional
activities under the guise of continuing medical education.
Because the continuing medical education business is complex, each
prize will be awarded to at least three lucky recipients. These
include: 1) The pharmaceutical company funding the CME program with an
"unrestricted educational grant;" 2) The medical education
communication company (MECC) that takes the money to produce the
activity; and 3) The physician (or group of physicians) who receives
the money from the MECC in order to attach their name to the activity.
Sometimes (as is true for today's award) there is a fourth recipient--
the institution receiving money in order to award Category 1 credit to
doctors who participate in the activity.
An apology to the disappointed: There are many, many deserving
recipients of the Doctors for Dollars Award. If you are stakeholder in
the industry-sponsored CME enterprise, and you are wondering why you
haven't received an award, keep checking back to this website. There
is a backlog of excellence, and I will be posting new honorees
frequently!
The First 2007 Doctors for Dollars Award
Goes To...
Shire and Friends for
Most Convincing Bogus "Academic Councils"
Details of the Award
Winning Pharmaceutical Company:
Shire Pharmaceuticals
Winning Medical Education Communication Company:
Haymarket Medical
Winning Physician Group:
Massachusetts General Hospital Child Psychiatrists
(and some of their colleagues from other institutions)
Winning CME Provider:
Boston University School of Medicine, Continuing Medical Education
Department
Background:
Shire Pharmaceuticals is currently THE name in ADHD medications,
having propelled Adderall and Adderall XR into market leader status
among psychostimulants. Now with two new versions of stimulants
hitting the market (Daytrana methylphenidate patch, and Vyvanse, the
"pro-drug" stimulant), Shire's marketing machinery is kicking it up
another notch. They have been spreading cash thickly throughout the
world of academic ADHD opinion leaders and have funded a series of CME
newsletters produced by Haymarket Medical, with PRA Category 1 Credit
being awarded by Boston University School of Medicine. Each newsletter
come in a series of six monthly issues, and each is titled with a
different academic-oid name, such as "New Perspectives on Adult ADHD,"
"Substance Use and ADHD," and "Adult ADHD and Common Comorbidities."
Each newsletter lists a different "Academic Council" supposedly
responsible for creating content.
Here is the cover of one of these not-very-newsy newsletters: [does
not reproduce]
And here is the "Adult ADHD Academic Council" which legitimizes it:
[Dr. Biederman and others]
There are several other similar councils. According to Jeff Forster,
of Haymarket Medical, these "councils" have no institutional home,
although council members are paid to attend a single meeting, during
which they discuss what should go into the newsletters. They are also
paid for "authorship" of CME articles, although presumably the
articles are actually written by medical writers at Harmarket and
signed, for a hefty fee, by the identified authors.
Such is the blistering pace of new knowledge in ADHD that Shire has
funded dozens of these pseudo-newsletters over the past several
months. Each newsletter flogs the knowledge-hungry physician with the
same rotating series of pearls: 1) Adult ADHD is underdiagnosed; 2)
Adult ADHD is a really bad disease, with lots of terrible
consequences; 3) A lot of the patients that present with depression
actually have ADHD if you dig deeply enough; 4) Stimulants don't lead
to substance abuse, in fact they prevent future development of
substance abuse; 5) Finally, and most importantly, psychostimulants
are incredibly effective for Adult ADHD, so prescribe lots of them.
None of these statements are lies, but, like most statements in the
world of ADHD, they are partial truths. Many would argue that adult
ADHD is over-diagnosed, and that stimulants are over-prescribed in the
United States. But this is a view that is censured in these ACCME
accredited CME activities.
I suspect that the Shire Newsletter Blitz of 2007 will be viewed by
historians as one of the more embarrassing collusions between
psychiatric academia and the pharmaceutical industry.
Posted by Daniel Carlat, M.D. at 6:30 AM
-