TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — In a story Jan. 31 about Pfizer Inc.'s litigation over the antidepressant Zoloft, The Associated Press reported erroneously that Dr. Norman Sussman is a New York University psychiatry professor. He is a professor at NYU School of Medicine.
A corrected version of the story is below:
Pfizer disputes suit claiming Zoloft doesn't work
Pfizer, psychiatrists dispute lawsuit claiming antidepressant Zoloft is no better than placebo
By LINDA A. JOHNSON
AP Business Writer
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — The maker of Zoloft is being sued in an unusual case alleging the popular antidepressant has no more benefit than a dummy pill and that patients who took it should be reimbursed for their costs.
Zoloft's maker, Pfizer Inc., the world's biggest drugmaker by revenue, disputes the claim, telling The Associated Press Thursday that clinical studies and the experience of millions of patients and their doctors over two decades prove Zoloft is effective.
The lawsuit was described as frivolous by Pfizer and four psychiatry experts interviewed by The AP.
Not so, according to plaintiff Laura A. Plumlee, who says Zoloft didn't help her during three years of treatment. Her attorney, R. Brent Wisner of the Los Angeles firm Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman, argues the Food and Drug Administration shouldn't have approved Zoloft because Pfizer didn't publish some clinical studies that found the drug about as effective as a placebo.
"It's about Pfizer deliberately withholding this information from consumers and then advertising this drug as very effective," Wisner said.
The suit accuses Pfizer of consumer fraud and other offenses, including quietly paying prominent doctors to tout Zoloft to colleagues or to be listed as authors of positive medical journal articles the company prepared for publication. New York-based Pfizer did not specifically respond to those allegations.
"Pfizer believes the lawsuit filed in California is groundless and is based largely on information ... that has been widely criticized by many experts in the mental health field," the company said in a statement provided to The AP. It said the FDA approved Zoloft in 1991 after reviewing "efficacy and safety data from more than 20 clinical studies involving more than 5,000 patients."
The president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, said the lawsuit's claims are "ridiculous" and without merit.
"As a class, antidepressant medications are highly effective. They alleviate substantial amounts, if not complete symptoms, in 50 to as high as 80 percent of patients treated who suffer from major depression," Lieberman said.
He stressed the medicines must be given at the proper dose, usually for several weeks to months, to get the full benefit. Also, patients should not stop taking any antidepressant without consulting their doctor.
Dr. Norman Sussman, a psychiatry professor at NYU School of Medicine, said for any given patient, there's only about a 35 percent chance a particular antidepressant will help.
Patients may have to try a few to find one that works for them, due to differences in patients' brains and the structure of the drug molecules.
Also, antidepressants tend to help severely depressed patients far more than people with mild depression or those who are temporarily blue from troubles such as a relative dying, rather than chemical imbalances in the brain.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose, Calif., asks a judge to approve two class-action cases, one for California residents who took Zoloft and one for all U.S. users.
It asks the judge to order Pfizer to correct "misleading" information in Zoloft's package insert and refund everything California patients paid for Zoloft. Consumer fraud laws differ from state to state, so if Wisner wins the case, he said he'll likely sue in other states.
Two law school professors, Benjamin Zipursky at Fordham University and Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond, said Plumlee's suit might end up being dismissed based on a decade-old Supreme Court ruling that plaintiffs can't recover alleged damages by claiming a company defrauded the FDA to get a drug approved. Zipursky said the lawsuit stresses that consumers were harmed financially, so it could get approved as a class action.