If the MHRA knew then what it knows now…

This from Matthew Holford (head of the Seroxat Secrets legal department!), writing to Sarah Walk at the MHRA.

I’ve got to say that Matt makes a very, very good point here. The reply will be most illuminating, I feel.

Dear Sarah,

We have, then, satisfied ourselves that the EWG was correct in asserting that patients on Seroxat are not dependent on the drug, to the extent that the DSM IV and ICD 10 systems are used to assess the characteristics of dependence. We have also satisfied ourselves that withdrawal is unquestionably a characteristic of dependence, and that withdrawal is also unquestionably a characteristic of Seroxat use.

The question that occurs to me immediately concerns the volume of patients, who may anticipate experiencing withdrawal, when they use the drug. I understand that the current PIL states 30% (it used to be 25%, and before that 0.7%, and less than four years ago, the figure was 0.1%), although I have seen estimates as high as 80%. Is the MHRA aware of any trials, which have been undertaken specifically to assess the extent of this issue?

Now, given that these figures have been revised so radically over such a short space of time, the question that occurs to me is “why?” What was it that caused GSK and the MHRA to come to the conclusion that the information provided on the PIL needed re-wording? I understand that spontaneous patient reports are not viewed as sufficiently compelling, irrespective of the importance allegedly attached to the Yellow Card scheme. And I understand that, in the absence of a perceived (ie, as perceived by it) problem, GSK initially declined to conduct trials to investigate the prevalence of withdrawal. So why the sudden change in perception?

Clearly, we should be grateful that the manufacturer and the regulator are so concerned with patient health that their continuous monitoring of SSRIs has permitted them to identify an issue, albeit that it is now acknowledged to be 300 times worse than originally perceived (or 30,000%, whichever you prefer). Would the MHRA have licensed the drug, had it been aware of the proximity and magnitude of the risk, at the time?

Best regards

Matthew Holford

4 Responses to “If the MHRA knew then what it knows now…”

  1. allotmentjunkies Says:

    A question I have pondered many times. You’re doing a great job on your blog – I look forward to hearing the response that your legal department receives. Its a simple enough question

    I hope that ‘they’ are feeling the pressure good and proper….

    Bravo!

  2. squirrel Says:

    Yes I think there are many people who will look forward to that reply.

  3. truthman30 Says:

    Would the MHRA have licenced thalidomide to pregnant mothers if they knew then what they know now about it…?

    Seroxat is no different to the tragic thalidomide scandal..

    Actually… It is much much worse ..

    Check out a new post on my blog…

    Seroxat Link 7 : The players part 2 : The MHRA

    http://truthman30.wordpress.com/

  4. Shutah Says:

    Here’s another link for you to check out …

    http://www.emea.eu.int/htms/general/contacts/CHMP/CHMP.html

    … seems to me like yet another ‘expert group’ showing ‘consistencies’ with CSM and MHRA !!!

    Will it never end?

    Keep up the good work.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: