Antipsychotic drugs increase one-year mortality by 42% in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, according to the Dementia Antipsychotic Withdrawal Trial published in Lancet Neurology.

Clive Ballard and colleagues at King’s College London reached this conclusion after analyzing data from a randomized controlled discontinuation study of 165 Alzheimer’s disease patients living at 4 skilled nursing or long-term care facilities in the UK.

And the mortality gap widened thereafter such that at 42 months, more than twice as many placebo-treated patients survived as those treated with antipsychotics.

The DART findings extend earlier findings that had demonstrated increased mortality in trials with 12-week endpoints.

DART patients were taking one of 5 commonly prescribed antipsychotics for 3 or more months prior to enrollment. They were randomized to receive continued antipsychotic drug therapy for 12 months or a placebo.

The scientists concluded that “the accumulating safety concerns, including the substantial increase in long-term mortality emphasize the urgent need to put an end to unnecessary and prolonged prescribing.”

They recommended replacing antipsychotics with safer alternatives such as psychotherapy or, depending on the syndrome, alternative agents like antidepressants.

The antipsychotic drugs in the London study carry black box warnings cautioning about mortality risk, yet 30% to 60% of dementia patients in North American and European long-term care facilities receive them, according to MedPageToday.

The mechanism by which antipsychotics mediate increased mortality is not known. It’s possible their sedative effects render patients more susceptible to infections and less able to stay fit.

For years privacy advocates have urged regulators to set standards regarding the scope of personal information collected by Internet companies, the time they’re allowed to keep it, and the use of such data to serve ads.

In the Big O administration, these groups see a new opportunity to press their cause.

The Future of Privacy Forum has asked the Big O to task a chief privacy officer who could formulate such policies, while the Center for Digital Democracy and US PIRG want the FTC to examine consumer privacy-threatening mobile marketing practices.

Then there’s the matter of how the government should handle data falling into its lap from people trying to friend the Big O on Facebook and government Web site visitors.

According to Jules Polonetsky of the Future of Privacy Forum, many government agencies appoint officials to oversee their Web sites’ use of cookies that track visitors, for example. But protocols governing search engines, video players and other online tools on these sites vary across agencies.

Polonetsky told the Washington Post that many countries in the EU as well as Canada and Argentina have appointed privacy czars, but the US doesn’t “have someone in charge.”

During the campaign, the Big O said he’d appoint a Cyber Czar, but that was in the context of discussions regarding cyber attacks and national security. It’s not clear this person will oversee Internet privacy.

And Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, scoffed at the notion of a privacy czar.

“We don’t need someone at the White House urging the industry to behave better,” he said. “Obama has called for a new era of regulatory scrutiny. Does that include online advertising and data collection?”

Forgive Big Pharma if it appears a bit weak in the knees as the Big O sweeps into power and a thundering herd of health care reformers draws near.

That’s only natural given that Obama has threatened to beef up the FDA, speed approval of generic drugs and negotiate better prices on what’s left.

Indeed it may be too late to get out of the way, but credit Big Pharma for trying. A little. How else to explain its lobbying arm’s decision to drop $10 million on an ad campaign supporting the Big O’s plans to cover (almost) every American?

Or as Billy Tauzin, head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America told the Washington Post, “we had better self-police and stop doing the things that cause so much criticism, or we’re going to get legislated and regulated by government.”

So Big Pharma wants to remind you that without prodding from those meddlesome regulators it’s decided to curtail distribution of branded pens, notepads and T-shirts, and restrict the purchase of meals for physicians as well.

That’s going to save a $6.8 billion per year, which ought to be enough to buy some Biotech companies that have actually developed useful products.

Not only that, Big Pharma recently announced it is imposing tougher, though still voluntary guidelines governing DTC advertising.

No longer can actors pose as physicians. Robert Jarvik, who is known more for a Lipitor plug than his singularly outstanding invention, will have to come clean: he’s a PhD, not an MD. And Katie Couric fans no longer have to watch soft porn branded by Cialis. 

Alas none of this amounts to a hill of beans to Republican Senator Charles Grassley, a carrier of the big stick. “People are less apt to violate a federal law than a code of ethics of (their) own profession,” he grumbled.