If 'atypical' neuroleptics did not exist, it wouldn't be necessary to invent them: perverse incentives in drug development, research, marketing and clinical practice.
Perverse incentives in drug development, research, marketing and clinical usage can be illustrated by considering the example of the so-called 'atypical' neuroleptics which have grown to become a standard - indeed expanding - part of psychiatric practice despite their probable inferiority to older sedative agents. There is now ample evidence to suggest that neuroleptics (aka. anti-psychotics and major tranquillizers) are dangerous drugs, and patients' exposure to them should be minimized wherever possible. This clinical imperative applies whether neuroleptics are of the traditional type or atypical variety, albeit for different reasons since the traditional agents are neurotoxic, while atypicals are mainly metabolic poisons. Usage of traditional neuroleptics seems indeed to be declining progressively, but the opposite seems to be happening for 'atypicals', and new indications for these drugs are being promoted. Yet the atypical neuroleptics are a category of pharmaceuticals which are close to being un-necessary since there are safer, cheaper and pleasanter substitutes, such as benzodiazepines and the sedative antihistamines (e.g. promethazine). If 'atypical' neuroleptics did not exist, it would not be necessary to invent them. Analysis of how such expensive, dangerous and inferior drugs as the 'atypicals' have nevertheless come to dominate clinical practice casts light on the perverse incentives which now motivate the pharmaceutical industry in an era of massive state regulation. The lack of positive incentives to deploy off-patent drugs is longstanding, but there is a new disincentive in the widespread but erroneous belief that only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can provide valid 'evidence' of effectiveness. Consequently, those who control RCTs now control clinical practice. It sometimes makes commercial sense to develop and market new drugs that are inferior to existing agents, since new drugs are patent-protected and can be promoted on the back of a mass of new RCTs funded and 'owned' by the pharmaceutical corporations. The current regulatory and patenting situation, therefore, requires major reform if drug efficacy and patient safety are to become higher priorities. Given that psychiatric practice is apparently 'locked-in' to prescribing atypicals, and if (as seems likely) most informed individuals would wish to avoid neuroleptics for themselves and their loved-ones except as a last resort; then in the short-term it may be wise for patients and their families to explore the possibilities of increased self-management of psychiatric problems using over-the-counter drugs, such as the sedative antihistamines. In the long-term, there need to be legal reforms to change the regulatory and commercial framework of incentives relating to drug development. These might include new forms of short-term re-patenting of old drugs.