Adriane Fugh-Berman was stunned by the question: Two graduate students who had no symptoms of mental illness wondered if she thought they should take a powerful schizophrenia drug each had been prescribed to treat insomnia.

“It’s a total outrage,” said Fugh-Berman, a physician who is an associate professor of pharmacology at Georgetown University. “These kids needed some basic sleep (advice), like reducing their intake of caffeine and alcohol, not a highly sedating drug.”

Those students exemplify a trend that alarms medical experts, policy-makers and patient advocates: the skyrocketing increase in the off-label use of an expensive class of drugs called atypical antipsychotics. Until the past decade these 11 drugs, most approved in the 1990s, had been reserved for the approximately 3 percent of Americans with the most disabling mental illnesses, chiefly schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; more recently a few have been approved to treat severe depression.

But these days atypical antipsychotics — the most popular are Seroquel, Zyprexa and Abilify — are being prescribed by psychiatrists and primary-care doctors to treat a panoply of conditions for which they have not been approved, including anxiety, attention-deficit disorder, sleep difficulties, behavioral problems in toddlers and dementia. These new drugs account for more than 90 percent of the market and have eclipsed an older generation of antipsychotics. Two recent reports have found that youths in foster care, some less than a year old, are taking more psychotropic drugs than other children, including those with the severest forms of mental illness.

In 2010 antipsychotic drugs racked up more than $16 billion in sales, according to IMS Health, a firm that tracks drug trends for the health-care industry. For the past three years they have ranked near or at the top of the best-selling classes of drugs, outstripping antidepressants and sometimes cholesterol medicines.

A study published last year found that off-label antipsychotic prescriptions doubled between 1995 and 2008, from 4.4 million to 9 million. And a recent report by pharmacy benefits manager Medco estimated that the prevalence of the drugs’ use among adults ballooned more than 169 percent between 2001 and 2010.

Critics say the popularity of atypical antipsychotics reflects a combination of hype that the expensive medicines, which can cost $500 per month, are safer than the earlier generation of drugs; hope that they will work for a variety of ailments when other treatments have not; and aggressive marketing by drug companies to doctors and patients.

“Antipsychotics are overused, overpriced and oversold,” said Allen Frances, former chair of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, who headed the task force that wrote the DSM-IV, psychiatry’s diagnostic bible. While judicious off-label use may be appropriate for those who have not responded to other treatments for, say, severe obsessive-compulsive disorder, Frances said the drugs, which are designed to calm patients and to moderate the hallucinations and delusions of psychosis, are being used “promiscuously, recklessly,” often to control behavior and with little regard for their serious side effects. These include major, rapid weight gain — 40 pounds is not uncommon — Type 2 diabetes, breast development in boys, irreversible facial tics and, among the elderly, an increased risk of death.

Doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs for unapproved uses, but companies are forbidden to promote them for such purposes. In the past few years major drugmakers have paid more than $2 billion to settle lawsuits brought by states and the federal government alleging illegal marketing; some cases are still being litigated, as are thousands of claims by patients. In 2009 Eli Lilly and Co. paid the federal government a record $1.4 billion to settle charges that it illegally marketed Zyprexa through, among other things, a “5 at 5 campaign” that urged nursing homes to administer 5 milligrams of the drug at 5 p.m. to induce sleep.

Wayne Blackmon, a psychiatrist and lawyer who teaches at George Washington University Law School, said he commonly sees patients taking more than one antipsychotic, which raises the risk of side effects. Blackmon regards them as the “drugs du jour,” too often prescribed for “problems of living. Somehow doctors have gotten it into their heads that this is an acceptable use.” Physicians, he said, have a financial incentive to prescribe drugs, widely regarded as a much quicker fix than a time-intensive evaluation and nondrug treatments such as behavior therapy, which might not be covered by insurance.

In a series in the New York Review of Books last year, Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, argued that the apparent “raging epidemic of mental illness” partly reflects diagnosis creep: the expansion of the elastic boundaries that define mental illnesses to include more people, which enlarges the market for psychiatric drugs.

“You can’t push a drug if people don’t think they have a disease,” said Fugh-Berman, who directs PharmedOut, a Georgetown program that educates doctors about drug marketing and promotion. “How do you normalize the use of antipsychotics? By using key opinion leaders to emphasize their use and through CMEs (continuing medical education) and ghost-written articles in medical journals,” which, she said “affect the whole information stream.”

James H. Scully Jr., medical director of the American Psychiatric Association, sees the situation differently. He agrees that misuse of the drugs is a problem and says that off-label prescribing should be based on some evidence of effectiveness. But Scully suggests that a key factor driving use of the drugs, in addition to “intense marketing and some effectiveness,” is the growing number of non-psychiatrists prescribing them. Many lack the expertise and experience necessary to properly diagnose and treat mental health problems, he said.

Among psychiatrists, use of antipsychotics is rooted in a desire to heal, according to Scully. “All of the meds we use have their limits. If you’re trying to help somebody, you think, ‘What else might I be able to do for them?’ ”

Since 2005, antipsychotics have carried a black-box warning, the strongest possible, cautioning against their use in elderly patients with dementia, because the drugs increase the risk of death. In 2008 the Food and Drug Administration reiterated its earlier warning, noting that “antipsychotics are not indicated for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis.” But experts say such use remains widespread.

In one Northern California nursing home in 2006 and 2007, 22 residents, many suffering from dementia, were given antipsychotics for the convenience of the staff or because the residents refused to go to the dining room. In some cases the drugs were forcibly injected, state officials said. Three residents died.

A 2011 report by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services found that in a six-month period in 2007, 14 percent of nursing home residents were given antipsychotics. In one case a patient with an undetected urinary-tract infection was given the drugs to control agitation.

“The primary reason is that there’s not enough staff,” said Toby S. Edelman, senior policy attorney for the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a Washington-based nonprofit group, who recently testified about the problem before the Senate Special Committee on Aging. “If you can’t tie people up, you give ’em a drug” she said, referring to restrictions on the use of physical restraints in nursing homes.

Nursing home residents aren’t the only ones gobbling antipsychotics.

Mark E. Helm, a Little Rock pediatrician who was a medical director of Arkansas’ Medicaid evidence-based prescription drug program from 2004 to 2010, said he had seen 18-month-olds being given potent antipsychotic drugs for bipolar disorder, an illness he said rarely develops before adolescence. Antipsychotics, which he characterized as the fastest-growing and most expensive class of drugs covered by the state’s Medicaid program, were typically prescribed to children to control disruptive behavior, which often stemmed from their impoverished, chaotic or dysfunctional families, Helm said. “Sedation is the key reason these meds get used,” he observed.

More than any other factor, experts agree, the explosive growth in the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder has fueled antipsychotic use among children. Between 1994 and 2003, reported diagnoses increased 40-fold, from about 20,000 to approximately 800,000, according to Columbia University researchers.

That diagnosis, popularized by several prominent child psychiatrists in Boston who claimed that extreme irritability, inattention and mood swings were actually pediatric bipolar disorder that can occur before age 2, has undergone a reevaluation in recent years. The reasons include the highly publicized death of a 4-year-old girl in Massachusetts, who along with her two young siblings had been taking a cocktail of powerful drugs for several years to treat bipolar disorder; the revelation of more than $1 million in unreported drug company payments to the leading proponent of the diagnosis; and growing doubts about its validity.

Helm said that antipsychotics, which he believes have become more socially acceptable, serve another purpose: as a gateway to mental health services. “To get a child qualified for SSI disability, it is helpful to have a child on a medicine,” he said, referring to the federal program that assists families of children who are disabled by illness.

Psychiatrist David J. Muzina, a national practice leader at pharmacy benefits manager Medco, said he believes direct-to-consumer advertising has helped fuel rising use of the drugs. As former director of the mood disorders center at the Cleveland Clinic, he encountered patients who asked for antipsychotics by name, citing a TV commercial or print ad.

Some states are attempting to rein in their use and cut escalating costs. Texas has announced it will not allow a child younger than 3 to receive antipsychotics without authorization from the state. Arkansas now requires parents to give informed consent before a child receives an anti-psychotic drug. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it is summoning state officials to a meeting this summer to address the use of antipsychotics in foster care. And Sens. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., and Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced legislation that would require doctors who prescribe antipsychotics off-label to nursing home patients to complete forms certifying that they are appropriate.

Medco is asking doctors to document that they have performed diabetes tests in patients taking the drugs. “Our intention here is to get doctors to reexamine prescriptions,” Muzina said.

“In the short term, I don’t see a change in this trend unless external forces intervene.”

This article was produced in collaboration with Kaiser Health News. KHN is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan health-policy research and communication organization not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Join the Conversation

24 Comments

    1.  If you actually believe what you just said, then you must think that anyone can go to their local drug store and just buy these products. What you are saying is that the factor allowing these drugs to be utilized by people who don’t need them should be imprisoned. That would be the doctors writing the prescriptions… So, to all the doctors who read this, DO NOT treat or prescribe drugs to Jonathan Albrecht, he wants you all imprisoned!!!!!!

      1. Have you ever heard the term “just ask your doctor?”

        Big Pharma as well as their warped physician enablers should all be imprisoned.

        1. “Just ask your doctor” doesn’t mean your doctor will automatically give it to you. It means “ask your doctor about…” And even then, the ads do not address “off-label” use.

  1. Off-label use for many meds is common practice.  Anti-convulsants treat anxiety and PTSD symptoms.  Anti-psychotics treat depression.  One anti-depressant is used to treat ADHD.  Until the FDA gets its act together, there will be no end to off-label use.

    1. FDA has a very good act. I scratch your back for millions and you scratch mine for millions. FDA doesn’t give ONE crap about what is safe for the human race. Everyone must educate themselves the best they can and go from there.
      Look at all the “food” that the FDA allows to be put on the store shelves and eaten by humans. How many millions of dollars do you think Little Debbies and all the junk/juice companies give to the politicians to “allow” the FDA to give their ok to label their items as safe and edible???

      1. “Look at all the ‘food’ that the FDA allows to be put on the store shelves and eaten by humans. How many millions of dollars do you think Little Debbies and all the junk/juice companies give to the politicians to ‘allow’ the FDA to give their ok to label their items as safe and edible???”

        Yes, Mom…

  2. Potential conflict of interest.Eli Lilly promotes Zyprexa that will *cause* diabetes and Lilly is also in the business of diabetes treatment.

    Association Between Zyprexa olanzapine and Hyperglycemia.

    There is concern Zyprexa,like other atypical antipsychotic drugs, has the potential to cause metabolic disorders, particularly hyperglycemia (excess sugar) and diabetes. Atypical antipsychotics cause the body to metabolize fat instead of carbohydrates, leading to insulin resistance to the excess carbohydrates. At the same time they promote fat accumulation.I was a patient back in 1996-2000 who was a subject of Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa ‘viva’ Zyprexa’ off label sales promotion.I was given it as an ineffective costly treatment for PTSD It gave me diabetes as a side effect.–Daniel Haszard

    1. “Eli Lilly promotes Zyprexa that will *cause* diabetes and Lilly is also in the business of diabetes treatment.”

      There is a difference between “will cause” and “may cause.” “Will cause” means that everyone who takes the drug will develop diabetes.

  3. Corporate greed of the pharmaceutical companies at it’s finest. They don’t care how people take it as long as they do………and if one drug causes another disease that needs to be prescribed another med…………all the better. Until people reject meds and go more holistic(most MD’s don’t believe in that route) then the pharm companies will push meds and make millions.

  4. Helm said that antipsychotics, which he believes have become more socially acceptable, serve another purpose: as a gateway to mental health services. “To get a child qualified for SSI disability, it is helpful to have a child on a medicine,” he said, referring to the federal program that assists families of children who are disabled by illness.Mood Disorder NOS ( not otherwise specified) seems to be a common diagnosis for these reasons.What does that even mean? But- it gets the money from insurance companies/Mainecare

    1. Reminds me, someone once told me if they cannot be sure or find a cause of a fire, it was electrical.

  5. My daughter got an intestinal infection while studying in the Dominican Republic.  She went to the doctors twice and they gave her medicine that seemed to work…for awhile…but it never went away.  So on her third trip, I asked her to give me the names of one of the medicines and it was a powerful drug for schizophrenia!  I quickly got a prescription from her doctor for a common antibiotic and Fedexed it to her and that took care of it.

    1. Then there would be no commercial TV. I’d like to know exactly how much of the ad revenue networks generate is from pharmaceutical companies.

      Such advertising is outlawed in most countries.

      1. Of course there would be commercial television. There was commercial television before drug companies were allowed to peddle their ways on television and in magazines.

    2. That’s not the problem. The problem is doctors who prescribe drugs designed to treat one disorder to treat another disorder.

  6. Not just death, but sudden unexplained death.

    I agree these drugs are too often and easily prescribed and too much so for something so dangerous. The mental hospitals prescribe and kick you out the door. If you don’t take it they want to keep you longer. Some service. The problem person may be right back out on the streets, where the calm person may be left behind.

    Please don’t send someone to a mental hospital because you do not understand them. I think blue papers should be for evaluation only for that reason. The 14th amendment states not to take anyone’s life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or the chance to get witnesses in your favor and a council and go through court, and have the option of a jury for anything worth over $20, and I think priceless items should be valued over the $20 mark.

    There is also a law in Maine where the hospital has to notify people of their change in rights when they leave and they do not. Can we fine all hospitals or just let all those people who were never notified of any changes have their right to life, liberty, and property back?

    Sedation is right, with antipsychotic medication the bodies ability to synthesize norepinephrine and epinephrine from dopamine are hindered since most of those drugs affect the dopamine system, the go portion of the brain.

    Antipsychotic medications give a warning not to stress the body and do excessive exercise, for all these medications and slows down heart rate. You know the thing that norepinephrine and epinephrine are supposed to do, increase blood pressure, baroreflex would normally slow the heart rate at that point, but norepinephrine and supposedly primarily epinephrine increases heart rate and then lowers blood pressure, and increases Bronchiole dilation for breathing, and helps retain water through our kidneys for the physical exertion. Slowing the heart rate or slowing this system may not a concern in some people. Some people, any slower reactions and they are out. That is a serious warning and can lead to unconsciousness if they are not already unconscious from tasting the drug.

    I think a little strength training and workouts might curb some of our problems with some people, rather than drugging them. Put money into a gym, not drugs. That also creates jobs.

    Many of the drugs also affect serotonin, which also effects our eating and release of dopamine. Mess with the hormones and block the 5HT receptor, you mess with the waistline.

    Some people eat to get their serotonin levels to rise, as it does with eating to shut down or slow dopamine release that was increased with the smell of good food. More food, more serotonin, a sign of being well off, dominance and high social rank. Surprise, subordinate or poor man is depressed and less aggressive. They are less apt “to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

    Also, mental illnesses seem to be associated with adolescence and sexual peak, probably something else about our bodies we should do more research on.

    People in a nursing home may have trouble communicating their needs and I think that is cruel to put them on a drug and forget about it. Autism is also another problem that is not an illness where one may have difficulty expressing needs and desires. Calling them crazy and giving them drugs does not help, and I think hurts more often than not.

    I also think parents may need to involve the other parent to understand their own children rather than putting them through tests and looking for drugs to get their way, or free money from the government.

    I think the, there must be a problem with my child if they are getting into trouble even though I did as a kid and was just being a kid, attitude should go.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *