{"id":50909,"date":"2014-10-20T13:39:16","date_gmt":"2014-10-20T17:39:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=50909"},"modified":"2014-10-28T12:32:29","modified_gmt":"2014-10-28T16:32:29","slug":"rather-than-micromanage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2014\/10\/20\/rather-than-micromanage\/","title":{"rendered":"rather than micromanage…"},"content":{"rendered":"
“APA has a role in shaping what future psychiatric practice looks like,” Schatzberg stated. “More needs to be done now if we are to have new treatments in the next decade for patients with psychiatric disorders.<\/em>”<\/div>\n
Alan Schatzberg in APF Convenes Unique Pipeline Summit<\/a>, April 2012<\/em><\/div>\n
\n
Pipeline and Innovation for Psychotropic Drugs Are Limited, Study Finds<\/a><\/div>\n
Psychiatric<\/font>News<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n
October 17, 2014<\/div>\n

As development of drugs to treat psychiatric disorders lags behind that of drugs for other illnesses, a recent study<\/a> published in Psychiatric Services in Advance<\/em> sheds light on why the pipeline for psychotropic medicines is nearly empty.<\/p>\n

Researchers from Brandeis University and Truven Health Analytics led an investigation of the current state of psychotropic drugs in the pipeline and potential barriers that may keep these drugs from reaching distribution in the United States… The analysis showed that the pipeline for psychotropic drug development — 99 clinical trials were included — is limited, with little product innovation evident. Most of the examined drugs were a combination of existing of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved medicines or individually approved medicines that were being tested for new indications or delivery-system approaches [such as an injectable version that is similar to an approved oral form]. Only three drugs differed substantially from existing drugs…<\/p>\n

In an interview with Psychiatric News<\/em>, Alan Schatzberg, M.D., a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University and former APA president, said that the departure by pharmaceutical companies to develop innovative psychotropic medicines could result in serious problems for the field of psychiatry, especially for patients. “There is a number of initiatives by various organizations to help with this problem, including the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, which is working with companies to provide investigators with compounds that have been shelved, and NIMH’s Research Domain Criteria [RDoC], which promotes research on specific [and new] biological targets," he said. Schatzberg emphasized that it will take a concerted effort on the parts of governmental agencies, industry, as well as APA to advocate for investment and innovative psychiatric drug development. “Silence will not be helpful to our patients,” he concluded…<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Since it became apparent in the summer of 2011 that the pharmaceutical industry was abandoning CNS drug development, there has been a frantic level of activity in the halls of psychiatry. For the previous two decades, organized and academic psychiatry had occupied itself with brain research and testing, commenting on, [and promoting] the CNS drugs that flowed from the industrial pipeline. After a period of panic and attempts to re-engage PHARMA, two threads emerged: changing the role of psychiatrists [the sequel I…<\/a>] coming from the APA leadership; and relocating CNS drug development and research to various public institutions, shepherded by NIMH Director, Tom Insel. Over the last several years, in a series of blog posts Dr. Insel has described a number of strategies including the NIMH RDoC [Research Domain Criteria<\/a>] and many others now under a Translational Science umbrella in the NIH. If you check out the links, most will be familiar to anyone who periodically checks in with Dr. Insel’s blog:<\/div>\n
\n
<\/a><\/div>\n
    \n
    Re-engineering Translational Sciences<\/a><\/div>\n