Toward Credible Conflict of Interest Policies in Clinical Psychiatry

A recent letter to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) from Sen Chuck Grassley about the APA’s financial relationship with pharmaceutical companies raises concerns about undue industry influence. By instituting a disclosure policy for DSM-V, the APA took a halting first step in restoring public trust in the most influential text on psychiatric taxonomy in the world. Unfortunately, the APA’s efforts at creating a conflict of interest (COI) policy have failed to ensure that the process for revising diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines is one that the public can trust. The need for more safeguards was evidenced when the APA reported that of the 27 task force members of DSM-V, only 8 reported no industry relationships.2 The fact that 70% of the task force members have reported direct industry ties—an increase of almost 14% over the percentage of DSM-IV task force members who had industry ties—shows that disclosure policies alone, especially those that rely on an honor system, are not enough and that more specific safeguards are needed

Undue Pharmaceutical Influence on Psychiatric Practice

Within the past few years, increasing concerns have arisen about the ways in which corporate sponsorship of clinical trials and continuing medical education activities may bias the information that is published and disseminated about the benefits and risks of medications. Questions have also been raised about the extent of industry influence on the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic and treatment guidelines—namely, its DSM and Clinical Practice Guidelines

Pharmaceutical Philanthropic Shell Games

In response to increasing public distrust and congressional concerns regarding pharmaceutical company influence on medical research and education, professional organizations have taken steps to phase out or regulate industry-sponsored educational support. A related problem is industry funding of philanthropic organizations, such as patient advocacy groups. Thus, when the office of Sen Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) recently reported that the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill received substantial pharmaceutical funding, there was concern among the membership’s psychiatric patients and their families

Markers of apoptosis: Methods for elucidating the mechanism of apoptotic cell death from the nervous system

Apoptosis is a highly conserved energy-requiring program for non-inflammatory cell death that is important in both normal physiology and disease. Numerous techniques have been used to study apoptosis. In the nervous system, apoptosis is necessary for normal development, but it also occurs in many acute and chronic pathologic conditions. This review places commonly used markers of apoptosis and their detection in the context of what is now known about the process of apoptosis. We review the potential role of apoptosis in nervous system and neurodegenerative disorders (Alzheimer\u27s disease, Parkinson\u27s disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). We then describe important morphological, immunocytochemical, and molecular genetic markers for apoptosis, including proteases, signal transduction molecules, and mitochondrial proteins. The possibility of manipulating apoptosis therapeutically in conditions of too many or too few cells is under active investigation

Industry influence on mental health research: depression as a case example

Emotional distress has been rising since before the COVID-19 pandemic and the public is told that depression is a major public health problem. For example, in 2017 depressive disorders were ranked as the third leading cause of “years lost to disability” and the World Health Organization now ranks depression as the single largest contributor to global disability. Although critical appraisals of the epidemiological data raise questions about the accuracy of population-based depression estimates, the dominance of the medical model and the marketing of psychotropics as “magic bullets,” have contributed to a dramatic rise in the prescription of psychiatric drugs. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry’s influence on psychiatric research and practice has resulted in over-estimates of the effectiveness of psychotropic medications and an under-reporting of harms. This is because the principles that govern commercial entities are incongruent with the principles that guide public health research and interventions. In order to conduct mental health research and develop interventions that are in the public’s best interest, we need non-reductionist epistemological and empirical approaches that incorporate a biopsychosocial perspective. Taking depression as a case example, we argue that the socio-political factors associated with emotional distress must be identified and addressed. We describe the harms of industry influence on mental health research and show how the emphasis on “scaling up” the diagnosis and treatment of depression is an insufficient response from a public health perspective. Solutions for reform are offered

The American Psychiatric Association’s Guideline for Major Depressive Disorder: A Commentary

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) published a new guideline for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) which will undoubtedly be used by many practitioners to guide clinical decision-making. In fact, it is non-psychiatrist clinicians who prescribe the majority of antidepressants (AD). We review the APA’s most recent guideline on MDD and report on our observations

Dynamic Informed Consent Processes Vital for Treatment with Antidepressants

Advances in technology and transparency have greatly accelerated the ability of clinicians to remain current with regards to being informed and informing patients about the risk/benefit ratio when considering antidepressant medication. In spite of this, the current climate of pharmaceutical industry influence on medical practice does much to hinder informed consent processes. Recent findings of previously unknown and potentially dangerous adverse effects of the second- and third-generation classes of antidepressants underscore the importance of enhancing the practice of informed consent. After considering the concept of informed consent as it has evolved over time, the authors summarize some of the newer side effects associated with second- and third-generation antidepressants and then move on to describe impediments in the way of achieving adequate informed consent at the clinical encounter. Among these impediments, the authors discuss the impact of industry influence, cognitive bias in decision-making, and time constraints. These obstacles and the notion that modern antidepressants are not as safe as once thought offer an opportunity to revisit the process of informed consent. A dynamic concept of informed consent is proposed with the acknowledgement that a mere listing of side effects or pro forma approach to informed consent is inadequate, and that a deep and ongoing conversation with patients will more likely result in patient empowerment and a strengthening of the therapeutic alliance. This process is analogized to an “n=1” approach where patients’ idiosyncratic responses to second- and third-generation antidepressants can be used to update prior beliefs based on large-scale trials and allow patient and doctor to shoulder the burden of uncertainty together, thereby enhancing placebo and minimizing nocebo response and leading to more optimal treatment outcomes

Drawing a line in the sand: affect and testimony in autism assessment teams in the UK.

Diagnosis of autism in the UK is generally made within a multidisciplinary team setting and is primarily based on observation and clinical interview. We examined how clinicians diagnose autism in practice by observing post-assessment meetings in specialist autism teams. Eighteen meetings across four teams based in the south of England and covering 88 cases were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. We drew out two themes, related to the way in which clinicians expressed their specialist disciplinary knowledge to come to diagnostic consensus: Feeling Autism in the Encounter; and Evaluating Testimonies of Non-present Actors. We show how clinicians produce objective accounts through their situated practices and perform diagnosis as an act of interpretation, affect and evaluation to meet the institutional demands of the diagnostic setting. Our study contributes to our understanding of how diagnosis is accomplished in practice.Wellcome Trust Investigator Awar