Tag: antidepressants

06/13/23

Overdiagnosing Depression with the PHQ

© lightwise | 123rf.com

According to PsychCentral, in 2020 there were more than 252 million prescriptions prescribed for mental health conditions. The total cost spent on psychiatric medications was more than $15.6 trillion. Zoloft (sertraline) was the most prescribed psychiatric medication with 38.22 million prescriptions, but only made Pfizer $523 million. This is because Pfizer’s patent on Zoloft expired in June of 2006. In its last full year of patent exclusivity, Pfizer’s sales for Zoloft totaled $3.3 billion. And it seems Zoloft’s popularity as an antidepressant can be credited at least in part to the introduction of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), which was developed by Pfizer shortly after Zoloft came on the market.

Writing for Insider, Hilary Bruek said Pfizer was persuaded to invest in the research necessary to develop what became the PHQ-9 by Howard Kroplick, one of their marketers. Kroplick told STAT: “It wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for me.” The PHQ-9 became a quick and easy tool that made many primary care doctors more comfortable prescribing antidepressants. Once Pfizer decided to underwrite the development of the PHQ-9, they contracted with Robert Spitzer and his wife Janet Williams, who were central figures in the revisions of the DSM-III.

In September of 2001, Kurt Kroenke, Robert Spitzer and Janet Williams published “The PHQ-9” in the Journal of General Medicine. The authors thought brief measures like the PHQ-9 were more likely to be used in the busy setting of primary care clinical practice. “Brevity coupled with its construct and criterion validity makes the PHQ-9 an attractive, dual-purpose instrument for making diagnoses and assessing severity of depressive disorders.” Note that the creators of the nine item PHQ-9 thought it could be used to diagnose depression. STAT reported the PHQ-9 has become an omnipresent tool, being cited in more than 11,000 scientific papers and routinely used in primary care and other routine visits.

Prescribing antidepressants in primary care based upon a PHQ-9 score of 10 or greater appears to be a sensible medical decision. There have been multiple studies such as Moriarty et al in General Hospital Psychiatry, that find the cutoff point of 10 on the PHQ-9 to have “acceptable diagnostic properties” for major depression. Studies, such as Negeri et al in the BMJ find the PHQ-9 has a combined sensitivity of 85% at the standard cutoff value of ≥10. A referral to a psychiatrist to confirm a depression diagnosis means a delay in treatment, meaning a delay in prescribing an antidepressant. Why not just recommend to the patient that they try a SSRI if their PHQ-9 score is equal to or greater than 10?

Malpass et al noted their concern that self-administered questionnaires like the PHQ-9 were regularly used in clinical practice to guide prescribing or to measure recovery and response to treatment. They thought when patients were given the PHQ-9, they were not interpreting the question items in the same way. They used a research technique called cognitive interviewing to identify ‘interpretive measurement error’ (IME). They found a wide range of comprehension and answer-mapping difficulties on the PHQ-9 that persisted over time.

Clinicians have expressed uncertainty about the PHQ-9’s validity and utility, and in the management and diagnosis of depression within primary care have a strong preference for clinical judgement over scores on severity measures. In light of the numerous ways the PHQ-9 may be missing the presence and/or intensity of certain symptoms that are meaningful to patients, clinicians should continue to adopt caution when using and interpreting questionnaire scores. The study raises the question that longer assessments may be better in providing opportunities for distinguishing frequency and severity.

Writing for Mad in America, Peter Simons commented on a meta-analysis study by researchers in the Journal of Epidemiology that concluded the PHQ-9 did not accurately estimate the prevalence of depression. The researchers concluded that that the PHQ-9 “substantially overestimates depression prevalence. There is too much heterogeneity to correct statistically in individual studies.” Simons said they found it was twice as likely to diagnose depression as the SCID, a semi-structured interview guide for making diagnoses according to the diagnostic criteria published in the DSM. 24.6% of participants in the study were found to be depressed by the PHQ-9, while only 12.1% met the criteria for depression on the SCID.

In primary care settings doctors will likely consider a positive score of ten or higher (the standard cut-off for depression screening with the PHQ-9) as indicating the presence of depression and consider it good enough to diagnose patients with depression and recommend antidepressant treatment. “This could lead to massive inflation of the estimates of how many people ‘have’ depression in the population.” The PHQ-9 is technically not a diagnostic measure of depression (despite what its creators said), but when it is used that way, the result is overdiagnosis.

Estimates of depression prevalence should be based on validated diagnostic interviews designed for determining case status; users should evaluate published reports of depression prevalence to ensure that they are based on methods intended to classify major depression.

The bottom line is that when screening tools like the PHQ-9 are used alone to assess depression in a person, clinicians are likely to misdiagnose it. And there are additional problems if the misdiagnosed person begins using an antidepressant to “treat” this so-called depression.

The general public widely believes depression is the result of a chemical imbalance, which shapes how people understand their moods. It may also discourage them from discontinuing a prescribed antidepressant medication, potentially leading to lifelong dependence on these drugs. An umbrella study by Moncrieff et al found “there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity.” The researchers said most studies did not find evidence of reduced serotonin activity in people with depression when they were compared to people without depression. The chemical imbalance theory of depression is now seen as an urban legend, “never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists,” according to pro-medication psychiatrist Ronald Pies.

Moncrieff and others have also noted there are adverse effects from taking antidepressants. In “Persistent adverse effects of antidepressants, she said we are not clear about the nature of the neurochemical and physiological changes that occur when we take an antidepressant. “We are even less certain about how the body, including the brain, adapts to the long-term presence of these drugs.” We also do not know whether the changes produced by the drugs in the brain return to normal when the drugs are stopped; or if the changes persist.

Moncrieff then pointed to the withdrawal effects with long-term antidepressant use. She said the evidence suggests a picture similar to benzodiazepine withdrawal. There is a range of duration and intensity, where not everyone experiences noticeable or debilitating symptoms, but there are numerous reports of “withdrawal symptoms being severe and protracted.”

Moncrieff also referred to a 2006 article by David Healy and others that associated antidepressants and violence in some individuals. Healy said mechanisms that linked antidepressant treatment (rather than the depression itself) to violent behavior included akathisia, emotional disinhibition, emotional blunting, and manic or psychotic reactions. “There is good evidence that antidepressant treatment can induce problems such as these and a prima facie case that akathisia, emotional blunting, and manic or psychotic reactions might lead to violence.”

A group of researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Center in Denmark, including Peter Gøtzsche, published a meta-analysis in 2016 that confirmed Healy et al’s findings, according to Moncrieff. They found the risk of aggressive behavior doubled with the use of antidepressants. They also said akathisia was under-reported. Although akathisia occurred more often with study participants who used antidepressants, the difference was not significant. While they found no significant differences in mortality or suicidality, “our data confirmed the increased risk of suicide in children and adolescents.”

A 2016 literature review of long-term newer antidepressant use (SSRIs and SNRIs) by Carvalho et al noted over 12 adverse effects from antidepressants, that included weight gain, bleeding, sleep disturbance, diabetes, osteoporosis and others. The findings of this review suggest that long-term treatment with SSRIs and SNRIs “should be avoided if alternative treatments are available.” The authors noted there is a tendency to extend antidepressant treatment for long periods of time, believing that it protects against recurrence. However, that was not true in all cases. “This finding indicates that in patients with chronic recurring MDD, recurrences are difficult to prevent with [antidepressant] use only.”

It seems that the PHQ-9 depression scale has contributed to the overdiagnosis of depression and the overuse of antidepressants. One might even suggest this was exactly what it was developed to do. The PHQ-9 helped Pfizer (and eventually other pharmaceutical drug companies) reach into the untapped market of primary care physicians and gave them a tool they felt comfortable using in order to prescribe antidepressants to their patients. Unfortunately for the PHQ-9, the evidence that antidepressants have limited efficacy and multiple adverse side effects is growing.

02/7/23

Paradigm Shift Needed with Depression

© markusbeck | 123rf.com

There has been a study published in Molecular Psychiatry, “The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence,” that debunked the chemical imbalance theory of depression. Wonder of wonders, it led to conversations in the general public about depression and the use of antidepressants. Was the theory just an urban legend, or is it just a shorthand explanation of how antidepressants work, “even if it’s not entirely accurate.” It also resulted in what seemed to be as much a personal attack to the lead author of the study, Joanna Moncrieff, by Rolling Stone: “Who Is the Psychiatrist Behind the Antidepressant Study Taking Over Right-Wing Media?”

She and the other researchers were ridiculed for doing an umbrella review of “outdated” studies. One professor of psychiatry was quoted as saying: “Wow, next she’ll tackle the discrediting of the black bile theory of depression.” The term originated in the humoral theory of Hippocratic medicine, where an excess of black bile was thought to result in a melancholic temperament and lead to symptoms of depression. This was the dominant theory for depression, or melancholia, from antiquity through the 19th century.

Responding to the Rolling Stone article on her blog, Moncrieff said ignoring her critique was no longer working. So, “champions of big Pharma and mainstream psychiatry have gone into attack mode.” In what she referred to a “a time-honoured tactic,” she described how Rolling Stone attempted to discredit her by associating her with the right-wing media coverage of their research.

The article accuses me of ‘promoting widely disputed beliefs about the dangers of various mental health interventions such as antidepressants or alternative forms of treatment’. This is not accurate. Most of the adverse effects I have highlighted in my research are widely recognised, and those that are less well-recognised (such as post SSRI sexual dysfunction- which is now recognised officially by the European Medicines Agency) have not been ‘widely disputed,’ or indeed disputed at all.

Psychiatric Times also used the black bile slur asking its physician readers what they would think if they saw the headline: “Depression Probably Not Caused by Excessive Black Bile.” The authors condescendingly said they believed that Moncrieff et al thought they were publishing something “extraordinarily newsworthy or controversial.” They concluded that “depression is a complex, heterogenous disorder with biological, psychological and sociological determinants and risk factors.” Placebo-controlled studies offered “ample evidence that serotonergic agents are safe and effective in the treatment of acute major depressive disorders.” They hoped that patients and clinicians were not deterred from using antidepressants by the review.

These ad hominem attacks were not the only coverage. On Point, a pod cast on NPR radio, featured Daniel Carlat, the chair of psychiatry at Melrose Wakefield Hospital, part of the TuftsMedicine network, Joanna Moncrieff and Anne Harrington, a professor of the history of science at Harvard University. The host for “Behind the new study changing how doctors view depression” noted while antidepressants work for some people, Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies don’t know how they work to relieve depression symptoms, “especially SSRIs.” Meghna Chakrabarti said some studies show that as many as 85% of the public believe the chemical imbalance theory of depression. “People have been told for three decades now, that depression is due to a chemical imbalance, and that they need to take antidepressant treatment to put that imbalance right.”

The program explored the gap between what the medical community knows about antidepressants, what the public knows, and why that gap exists. Dr. Carlat said many of the studies reviewed by Moncrieff et al were ones he had read before he wrote his 2010 book, Unhinged: The Trouble with Psychiatry – a Doctor’s Revelations about a Profession in Crisis. He thought their study pulled the data together “in a nice way” that made it very clear: “People have been led to believe that there is a chemical imbalance theory of depression.” Listen to the 40-minute program to hear more from Dr. Carlat.

The overall message seems to be yes, the public believed there was a chemical imbalance theory of serotonin deficiency for depression, but that’s old news. Researchers and academic psychiatrists have never believed this urban legend. Nevertheless, antidepressants still work and are safe and effective, so don’t be deterred from using them. However, that effectiveness rate is only slightly better than a placebo in the clinical trials approved by the FDA. And that difference—around two points on the 52-point Hamilton D depression scale—is “clinically imperceptible.”

Marc Stone was the lead author of a new study published in the BMJ, the British Medical Journal, in August of 2022. He is the Deputy Director for Safety with the FDA. Irving Kirsch, the principal investigator, is the Associate Director of the Program in Placebo Studies at Harvard Medical School, noted for his work on placebo effects with antidepressants. See “Dirty Little Secret” and “Do No Harm with Antidepressants” for more on Kirsch’s work on antidepressants and placebos.

Stone et al again replicated the less-than-two-point difference between drug and placebo across all 73,388 participants. “We found a drug effect among adults equivalent to 1.82 points, with a standardized mean difference of .24.” The response distributions did not appear to be unimodal to the researchers. Further analysis of the data found the optimal model for drug and placebo responses was “a combination of three overlapping normal distributions,” which they referred to as Large responses, Minimal responses and Non-specific. About two thirds of participants had a Non-specific response; and about 15% had a substantial antidepressant effect.

Reviewing the BMJ study for Mad in America, Peter Simon said:

The drug and placebo groups both had extremely high rates of symptom improvement: 84.4% of the placebo group found their depression symptoms improved, while 88.5% of the drug group improved. However, in many cases, this “improvement” was small.

More important is the number of people who experienced a large improvement. This improvement is more likely to be clinically relevant. The researchers found that those taking the drug were more likely to experience this level of improvement—24.5% of the antidepressant group experienced large improvement, versus 9.6% of the placebo group.

Based on these numbers, there seems to be a small group—about 15% of people—who experience a large response to the drug who would not otherwise improve to this level.

Unfortunately, the researchers found no way to predict who, exactly, is in this 15%. They write that if everyone with a depression diagnosis is given an antidepressant, about seven people need to be given the drug (and thus be exposed to the harmful effects with no benefit) before one person benefits.

Only one in seven people who use antidepressants will notice a clear improvement and researchers can’t predict who those individuals will be. That means 85% of individuals using antidepressants will not have a clinically noticeable improvement. Stone et al said the effectiveness of all placebo-controlled antidepressant efficacy trials submitted to the FDA between 1979 and 2016 was 1.82 points on the HAMD17, ranging from 1.62 to 2.56. It is generally agreed that drug-placebo differences greater than 3 points are necessary for a clinician to detect a minimal improvement with a patient. See “Fighting or Fueling Suicide with Antidepressants?”

It doesn’t seem that placebo-controlled studies of antidepressants offer ample evidence that they are “safe and effective” in treating acute major depression. The findings and conclusions of “The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence” cannot be easily ignored or dismissed.

One final research article to consider is by Peter Sterling, a professor of Neuroscience at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. He is a self-described “hard core” neuroscientist. His article, “A Neuroscientist Evaluates the Standard Biological Model of Depression,” concluded that current evidence does not support the hypothesis that depression is “a localized, disordered neural circuit.” Neuroimaging cannot identify “the mental disturbance” we call depression; nor can it be predicted in individuals by analyzing their genetic makeup.

“Chemical imbalance” theories of depression have not been supported, thereby removing any scientific rationale for “antidepressant” drugs. The drugs are not specific but rather affect myriad neurotransmitter systems, offering little advantage for most individuals, but commonly causing long-term harm. The brain adapts to antidepressant drugs, just as it adapts to drugs of abuse, and so for both withdrawal can be extremely difficult.

Depression is far better predicted by levels of childhood trauma, life stress, and lack of social supports. Depression in individuals is significantly reduced by physical repairs to their depressed communities and by psychological repairs through shared experience of childhood trauma and chronic domestic abuse.

If researchers and academic psychiatrists never believed the chemical imbalance theory of depression, why weren’t they as assertive challenging this urban legend as they have been at minimizing the significance of “The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence?” Does an effectiveness rate of 15% with antidepressants justify 85%—6 of 7 who use them—receiving ineffective, marginally better treatment effectiveness than placebo? Supporters of the current paradigm of depression and its treatment dismiss or minimize evidence that challenges it. There needs to be a paradigm shift in how we think about depression and its treatment.

12/20/22

Business as Usual with Antidepressants

Van Gogh | in the public domain{{PD-US}}

In “Serotonin or Not, Antidepressants Work” for Psychiatric Times, Drs. Ronald Pies and George Dawson wrote a critique of an article in Molecular Psychiatry by Moncrieff et al, “The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence.” They were puzzled with the article’s claim, that there was “no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations.” They said it was like seeing an article in 2022, that said depression was probably not caused by excessive black bile.

Pies and Dawson dismissed the review as nothing more than “old wine in new bottles.” Then they listed 7 ways they thought the review and its conclusions were amiss. The role of serotonin in mood disorders was not settled science and there may be a role for it “in some types of depression, which is almost certainly a heterogeneous group of disorders.” They quoted Dr. Michael Bloomfield who said: “The problem with the review [by Moncrieff et al] is that…it has lumped together depression as if it is a single disorder, which from a biological perspective does not make any sense.”

Yet it does make sense when you do an umbrella review of studies where depression was assessed as the singular disorder of Major Sepressive Disorder, according to the DSM—which is published by the American Psychiatric Association.

Depression is a complex, heterogeneous disorder with biological, psychological, and sociocultural determinants and risk factors. Very few—if any—US psychopharmacologists and academic psychiatrists have ever endorsed a sweeping chemical imbalance theory of mood disorders. Historically, psychiatrists have never explained clinical depression solely in terms of reduced serotonin or any specific neurotransmitter. Many drugs in clinical medicine work through unknown or multiple mechanisms, as SSRIs do, and this does not affect their safety, efficacy, or approval for medical use. Results of placebo-controlled studies offer ample evidence that serotonergic antidepressants are safe and effective in the treatment of acute major depressive episodes. If serotonergic agents are not helpful, antidepressants from other classes (eg, noradrenergic/dopaminergic agents) may be considered.

Their final word was they hoped patients and clinicians would not be deterred from using antidepressants by the review, “or by the fact that SSRIs’ mechanism of action is complex and not completely understood.” So, the bottom line of their critique was whether or not we understand how serotonin influences depression, SSRIs work. In other words, the serotonin theory of depression may be wrong, but there must be a biochemical connection because antidepressants work. The effectiveness of SSRIs and other antidepressants is evidence of such a relationship. We just haven’t discovered what it is yet.

The Moncrieff et al article has received a significant amount of support as well as critique since it was published. The Rolling Stone wrote how the article “went viral,” but then essentially attempted to marginalize Moncrieff and dismiss her research.

In an email to Rolling Stone, Moncrieff said, “I see our research as linked with the way we understand and evaluate antidepressants, and it logically follows from my other work on the nature of drug action.” I think this statement by Moncrieff is the center of the dispute, but that was not where Rolling Stone went. It went off on a tangent, noting how the Church of Scientology organization, CCHR, frequently promoted her work. Also, that ‘far-right’ commentators like Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson were promoting its findings. They suggested she was dabbling in conspiratorial thinking. If you conclude that antidepressants don’t work after reading her paper, then you got the wrong message.

Joseph Comaty, a Medical Psychologist, thought the paper didn’t undermine the efficacy of antidepressants. “But we just don’t know the biochemical theory of depression.” As we learn more about mental illness, things will change. According to Comaty: “if what we once believed is no longer tenable, then yeah, we’ll move along and come up with a new one.” That is just the process of scientific inquiry.

However, the mythical nature of the serotonin hypothesis of depression doesn’t seem to have been translated into the marketing and public discussion of antidepressants just yet. And why is it psychiatrists are referring to the Moncrieff et al study as old wine in new wine skins, saying it is akin to declaring depression is not caused by an excess of black bile? If they’ve known the chemical imbalance theory of depression was an error for several years, why did they not correct that false impression in the public media that is now discussing the Moncrieff et al review?

In a blog article, Moncrieff responded to some of the inaccuracies and distortions in the Rolling Stone article. She said apparently their finding was so obvious that it was met with yawns by the psychiatric community. “Yet the public were kept in the dark about the lack of evidence for a chemical imbalance for three decades in what an Australian psychiatrist recently called a ‘scourge on our profession’. And the public is very interested.” Their original paper is in the top 500 most shared scientific papers—of the 21 million that have ever been tracked—and their article in The Conversation (the one Pies and Dawson referred to) had over a million hits by August 3rd.

She noted the attempt to discredit her by association to the Scientologists and the ‘right-wing media.’ The article said she promoted the belief that SSRIs were linked to aggressive behavior, which was said to be a fringe view used by right wing media to argue against gun control in the US. She did comment on research published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that found a link between antidepressants and aggressive behavior, as well as suicide, in young people. Her comments were published in an invited editorial in the BMJ.

The journalist does present my response to these issues, but bringing them up seems to suggest that because of this we should never have publicised or maybe even done our research. This amounts to the suggestion that millions of people should be denied information about the drugs they put in their body every day because the message might be taken up by the ‘wrong’ people.

The ’right’ people seem to be the ones who have known for thirty years that the chemical imbalance theory was disproved. They’ve known it was an urban myth, yet did not speak up and correct the wrong impression given to the public. Now that the public is paying attention, they say the news about serotonin is old hat. It seems they want you to ignore the conclusions of the Moncrieff et al study and just return to business as usual with antidepressants.

For more information on the Moncrieff et al study its implications, see “The Death of the Chemical Imbalance Theory?” and “The Myth of the Serotonin Theory of Depression.”

10/25/22

The Myth of the Serotonin Theory of Depression

© Stock Photo | 123rf.com

A research article by Joanna Moncrieff, Mark Horowitz and others, “The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic review of the evidence”, published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry in July of 2022, continues to draw media attention to its findings. The researchers did a systematic umbrella review of the principle relevant areas of research and concluded that the main areas of serotonin research provide no consistent evidence of an association between serotonin and depression. “We suggest it is time to acknowledge that the serotonin theory of depression in not empirically substantiated.” In other words, it’s a myth.

The response from many psychiatrists to the article was that the serotonin imbalance theory has not been treated seriously within the field for many years. Neuroscience News & Research quoted several who thought the findings were not surprising. Dr. Michael Bloomfield a consultant psychiatrist and head of the translational psychiatry research group at University College London said he didn’t think he’d met any serious scientists or psychiatrists who thought that “all causes of depression are cause by a simple chemical imbalance in serotonin.” Allan Young, the director of the Centre for Affective Disorders at King’s College London said, “Most psychiatrists adhere to the biopsychosocial model with very few people subscribing to a simple ‘chemical imbalance’ theory.”

According to Ang, Moncrieff and Horowitz in Is the chemical imbalance theory an ‘urban legend’?, historically there was a considerable promotion of the serotonin hypothesis of depression in both the psychiatric and the psychopharmacology literature. Research papers supporting it were widely cited. While some textbooks were more nuanced, others could be seen to unreservedly indorse it. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) published a patient leaflet in 2005 that said, “antidepressants may be prescribed to correct imbalances in the levels of chemicals in the brain.” See, “The Death of the Chemical Imbalance Theory?” on this website.

It is often assumed that the effects of antidepressants demonstrate that depression must be at least partially caused by a brain-based chemical abnormality, and that the apparent efficacy of SSRIs shows that serotonin is implicated. Other explanations for the effects of antidepressants have been put forward, however, including the idea that they work via an amplified placebo effect or through their ability to restrict or blunt emotions in general.

Moncrieff et al said surveys suggest that 80% of the general public now believe depression is caused by a ‘chemical imbalance.’ They said many general practitioners also subscribe to this view and popular website commonly cite the theory.

The chemical imbalance theory of depression is still put forward by professionals, and the serotonin theory, in particular, has formed the basis of a considerable research effort over the last few decades. The general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities, and this belief shapes how people understand their moods, leading to a pessimistic outlook on the outcome of depression and negative expectancies about the possibility of self-regulation of mood. The idea that depression is the result of a chemical imbalance also influences decisions about whether to take or continue antidepressant medication and may discourage people from discontinuing treatment, potentially leading to lifelong dependence on these drugs.

Writing for The Conversation, Moncrieff and Horowitz said the serotonin theory of depression has been one of the most influential and extensively researched biological theories of depression. Most antidepressants now in use are presumed to work through their effects on serotonin or noradrenaline. Yet their study shows that is not supported by scientific evidence. “It also calls into question the basis for the use of antidepressants.”

It is important that people know that the idea that depression results from a “chemical imbalance” is hypothetical. And we do not understand what temporarily elevating serotonin or other biochemical changes produced by antidepressants do to the brain. We conclude that it is impossible to say that taking SSRI antidepressants is worthwhile, or even completely safe.If you’re taking antidepressants, it’s very important you don’t stop doing so without speaking to your doctor first. But people need all this information to make informed decisions about whether or not to take these drugs.

The organization, Inner Compass Initiative, was able to get Joanna Moncrieff, Mark Horowitz and Irving Kirsch together for an online discussion in “Moving Beyond Myth: A Postmortem Analysis of Chemical Imbalances and Antidepressants Efficacy.” On its website Inner Compass Initiative said it is an organization that is “dedicated to helping people make more informed choices about taking and withdrawing from psychiatric medications.”

Irvin Kirsch has published several studies of the placebo effect and antidepressants, demonstrating that most of the efficacy with antidepressants is from the placebo effect. For more information on Irving Kirsch and his research, see, “Dirty Little Secret,” and “Antidepressant Fall From Grace, Part 2” on this website.

The Inner Compass Initiative moderator, Laura Delano, said the use of antidepressants in the West more than doubled between 2000 and 2015. One in seven Americans and one in six in England take an antidepressant. In October of 2004 the FDA issued a black box warning, indicating an increased risk of suicidal ideation and behavior in children and adolescents treated with SSRIs. However, their off-label use with children and adolescents has increased. In “Antidepressants in Children and Adolescents”, Boaden et al said: “From 2005 to 2012, the prevalence of antidepressant use has increased from 1.3% to 1.6% in the USA, from 0.7% to 1.1% in the UK.”

While the overall percentages are low, keep in mind that at least in the U.S. those increases took place after the FDA required a black box warning of an increased risk of suicidality with children and adolescents treated with SSRIs. In the UK, it represents an increase of over 36%; in the USA, by almost 19%.

“Moving Beyond Myth” begins with a description of how serotonin is measured within the body and a review of the history of the chemical imbalance theory. Joanna Moncrieff said it is not the case that there is a set normal level of serotonin against which people’s serotonin can be judged. She went on to say that the chemical imbalance theory of depression was one of a number of chemical imbalance theories of mental disorders that arose in the 1960s, “in the context of thoughts about drugs that are used to treat these disorders. So, they’re always directly related to the use of drug treatments.” Psychiatrists and researchers came to think that the drugs are working by targeting the underlying abnormality.

Initially they thought that noradrenaline might be relevant in depression. They hypothesized that depression might be due to lower levels of noradrenaline. But when the drugs that selectively target serotonin came out, “people started to think that the underlying abnormality was an abnormality of serotonin, rather than noradrenaline. And that is what the pharmaceutical industry took hold of and ran with in the 1990s when they started to market SSRIs.”

Her point is that chemical imbalance theories have always been dreamed up in the context of the use of different drugs to treat mental disorders. “They are based on the assumption that drugs are working by targeting the underlying abnormality, and that you can deduce the abnormality from the opposite of what the drugs do.” Mark Horowitz goes on to describe the findings of “The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic review of the evidence.”

An added bonus in “Moving Beyond Myth” is to hear Irving Kirsch describe his research into antidepressant efficacy and its relationship to the placebo effect. His most recent research was published in August of 2022 in the BMJ (British Medical Journal). Kirsch and the other researchers did a participant level analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of acute monotherapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder submitted to the FDA between 1979 and 2016. The Conclusions section of the article said:

Patients with depression are likely to improve substantially from acute treatment of their depression with drug or placebo. Although the mean effect of antidepressants is only a small improvement over placebo, the effect of active drug seems to increase the probability that any patient will benefit substantially from treatment by about 15%. Further research is needed to identify the subset of patients who are likely to require antidepressants for substantial improvement. The potential for substantial benefit must be weighed against the risks associated with the use of antidepressants, as well as consideration of the risks associated with other treatments that have shown similar benefits. Because the benefits and risks might be categorically different (eg, reduced sadness v anorgasmia), weighting should be done at the individual level, jointly by patients and their care providers.

The belief that a chemical imbalance underlies depression and other mental disorders has begun to unravel. For some time, it has been set aside by researchers and some psychiatrists as an urban legend. The pharmaceutical industry may continue to hold on to the notion that drugs work by targeting an underlying abnormality and that you can identify the abnormality “from the opposite of what the drugs do.” But it is time the public became aware that the chemical imbalance theory of depression is just a myth.

07/19/22

The Vicious Cycle of Antidepressant Use

© niceideas | 123rf.com

CDC data reported that 13.2% of adults used antidepressants in the past 30 days, and their use increased with age. A similar increase by age was apparent when antidepressant use was examined in both men and women. “In all age groups, antidepressant use was higher among women compared with men.” However, a new study suggested that antidepressant use has very little effect on patients’ health-related quality of life.

The above information on antidepressant use was taken from the CDC data brief report looking at Antidepressant Use Among Adults in the United States. Antidepressant use in the past thirty days increased among adults aged 18-39 (7.9%), then to 14.4% among adults aged 40-59, and to 19.0% among adults aged 60 and over. Disconcertingly, 20% of women between 40 and 59 almost one quarter of women 60 and over were prescribed antidepressants. Overall, antidepressant use increased from 10.6% in 2009 to 13.8% in 2018. See the following charts from the CDC data brief.

The New York Times cited these statistics in “How Much Do Antidepressants Help, Really?” It observed that clinical drug trials only follow people taking antidepressants for 8 to 12 weeks, missing the vast majority of people who take them longer. The NYT article then referenced a study published in April of 2022, “Antidepressants and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients with depression.” This study compared Americans with a depression diagnosis who took antidepressants, to Americans with a depression diagnosis who did not take the medications over the course of two years.

The data came from the US National Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS). The study included all types of antidepressants—SSRIs like Prozac, SNRIs like Effexor, and older antidepressants like phenelzine. The researchers found no significant differences in the changes in quality of life reported by the two groups, suggesting “that antidepressant drugs may not improve long-term quality of life.”

A physician and epidemiologist who was not involved in the study said it was difficult to come to a conclusion on this study alone. Individuals who are prescribed antidepressants are likely more depressed than individuals who aren’t prescribed drugs. “People with more severe depression might be less likely to improve their mental quality-of-life scores over time,” for reasons that don’t correspond to the antidepressants they take. When Peter Simons reviewed the study for Mad in America, he said that critique was simply false.

The researchers used a statistical method called the difference-in-difference (D-I-D) analysis that compared each subject’s follow-up levels to their individual baseline levels for their physical and mental component summaries, (PCS and MCS). They acknowledged their study’s inability to control for the effect of the severity of depression. “However, the D-I-D analysis compare each subject’s follow-up levels to his/her individual baseline levels for the PCS and MCS and investigate the overall change for the group which should minimize the impact of this factor on the overall analysis.”

Another perceived issue with the study was that since people were taking antidepressants for an extended time, some quality-of-life improvements could have taken place before the study began following them. Omar Almohammed, a co-author of the study said it was still reasonable to expect continued increases in quality of life long after beginning an antidepressant. “If we don’t expect improvement from the continuous use of these medications, then the correct decision might be to stop the continuous use of these medications.”

But pills are often cheaper. And it can be difficult for some to access therapy because there aren’t enough providers, and mental health treatment aren’t fully covered by all insurance plans. Robert DeRubeis of the University of Pennsylvania said, “It’s not at all clear that even in the short term, pharmacological approaches, on average, are more effective than psychological ones.”

Clinical trials suggest that although antidepressants do improve depression symptoms over the first few months, their benefits are modest and are much less pronounced among people with mild depression compared with those with severe depression. (This is worrying considering that, according to one study, 73 percent of Americans prescribed antidepressants don’t even have a diagnosis of depression.) And experts are divided over whether these small benefits make a noticeable difference to people’s moods or overall functioning.

Much of this improvement is attributed to the placebo effect, rather than the medication itself. Even researchers who argue the benefits from antidepressants admit they “do not work for everybody.” And over time, they will have even less benefits. There are approximately 15.5 million Americans who have been taking antidepressants for at least five years. The longer that people take them, there will likely be increasingly smaller benefits, “in part because patients build up a tolerance to the medications.”

But there is a vicious cycle if you decide to discontinue your use of antidepressants. Too rapid of a taper can lead to antidepressant withdrawal, euphemistically called “discontinuation syndrome.” These withdrawal symptoms are sometimes seen as a depressive relapse, “proving” the need to remain on antidepressants in order to hold off a major depressive episode. They often include physical sensations such as dizziness, nausea, and “brain zaps” (an electric shock sensation in the head). In “Distinguishing relapse from antidepressant withdrawal,” Mark Horowitz and David Taylor said many withdrawal symptoms overlap with symptoms of anxiety or depressions, making it difficult to distinguish.

Their onset soon after dose reduction, the association of psychological with physical symptoms, their prompt response to reinstatement, and their typical ‘wave’ pattern of onset, peak and resolution can help distinguish withdrawal symptoms from relapse.

Giovanni Fava has researched the adverse effects of antidepressants for almost thirty years. In 1994, he said in an editorial for the journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, “The field of psychopharmacology has generally neglected the issue of potential sensitization of psychiatric disease to psychotropic drug use.” In January of 2022 he released Discontinuing Antidepressant Medications, as a guide for clinicians who want to help patients withdraw from antidepressants. Fava was interviewed by James Moore about the release of his book for a Mad in America podcast.

In Discontinuing Antidepressant Medications, Fava introduced the construct of behavioral toxicity of psychotropic drugs, applying it to the field of antidepressant tapering and discontinuation. Fava said it was originally described by Alberto DiMascio and Dick Shader.

A medication that is used at the normal, average doses may become toxic to the patient and this toxicity expresses itself with phenomena such as loss of clinical effect, where the patient is doing well on antidepressant and after a while of taking medication regularly, the antidepressant no longer works. If you try to increase the dosage, it may only help for a little while. So, loss of clinical effect and hypomanic episodes—that is the medication is really working too much and brings the patient to a state of hypomania or mania which is a symptom of bipolar disorder—but also a paradoxical fact that is that the antidepressant makes you more depressed.In the book, I discuss the relationship between venlafaxine and apathy. This is an example of a paradoxical effect and resistance, the fact that these patients become resistant either to the same medication, when it’s prescribed again or to another medication. Withdrawal is part of behavioral toxicity and my view is quite different from that of other investigators in the field because as a clinician I know that all these manifestations of behavioral toxicity are related.

Fava said if you have two, or three or even four of these manifestations together, it is likely an example of behavioral toxicity. He works with the most difficult cases and explained that the longer a patient is on a medication, “The higher the toxicity that you provoke.” In other words, the antidepressant that initially was effective “has become toxic” to the patient and is causing a problem. He said it is difficult to discontinue an antidepressant if you don’t use some additional medications and psychotherapy. Discontinuing antidepressants is not something that can be applied to all patients.

So, when I discuss with a patient, I’ll say that most of the patients, 90% of the patients respond, “Please, get this medication out of my body as soon as you can.” Then, we continue with that, but a basic problem which is not only in this field but in psychiatry and in medicine today is to believe that there is a procedure we should apply to all patients, and that is clinical practice shows that it’s not possible.

Antidepressant withdrawal, discontinuation syndrome, is becoming a greater concern in American psychiatry, but it isn’t where it needs to be. In addition to Giovanni Fava, Peter Breggin has been critical of the over prescription of psychiatric medications and wrote Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal in 2013. In 2020, the Royal College of Psychiatrists published “Stopping Antidepressants,” which contains information for “anyone who wants to know more about stopping antidepressants.”  In May of 2018, The All-Party Group for Prescribed Drug Dependence (in the Parliament of the U.K.) published, “Antidepressant Dependency and Withdrawal.”

The Executive Summary of that publication said it was incorrect to view antidepressant withdrawal as largely mild, self-limiting and of short duration. Antidepressants fulfill criteria for being dependency-forming medications. Around one-third of users “report being addicted to AD [antidepressants], according to their own definition of that concept.” The increase of long-term antidepressant use along with with the misdiagnosis of withdrawal reactions warrants serious concern.

The lengthening duration of AD use (which has doubled on average in the last 10 years) has fuelled rising AD prescriptions over the same time period. The evidence suggests that such lengthening duration may be partly rooted in the underestimation of the incidence, severity and duration of AD withdrawal reactions; underestimations which may have led to many withdrawal reactions being misdiagnosed as relapse or as failure to respond to treatment. It warrants serious concern that the misdiagnosis of withdrawal may be contributing to escalating long-term AD use (since drugs are being reinstated rather than withdrawn), given that long-term use is associated with increased severe side-effects, increased risk of weight gain, the impairment of patients’ autonomy and resilience (increasing their dependence on medical help), worsening outcomes for some patients, greater relapse rates, and the development of neurodegenerative diseases, such as dementia.

For more on antidepressants on this website, try: “Withdrawal or Relapse When Tapering Antidepressants?” and “Are Antidepressants Worth the Risks?”

03/1/22

Withdrawal or Relapse When Tapering Antidepressants?

© sangoiri |123rf.com

The number of antidepressant prescriptions written in primary care has continued to increase, and patients are remaining on them for longer durations of time. Yet research into maintaining or discontinuing antidepressants (ADs) in this setting has been almost nonexistent. “Maintenance or Discontinuation of Antidepressants in Primary Care,” published in September of 2021 in The New England Medical Journal, examined the relapse rates of primary care patients who expressed a desire to discontinue their antidepressant. The researchers, G. Lewis and L. Marston et al, found that patients who chose to discontinue their antidepressant therapy had a higher risk of relapse than those who maintained their current medication. However, others believed the results were misleading, because the authors misinterpreted withdrawal effects as relapse.

Lewis, Marston et al found that patients assigned to discontinue their antidepressant medication had a higher frequency of depression relapse than those who maintained their medication through the 52 weeks of follow-up done by the study. Eligible patients were between 18 and 74, and had reported at least two prior episodes of depression. All patients had been receiving and adhering to their daily regimens and had been taking their ADs for more than two years. The main exclusion criterion for the study was current depression. They investigated three SSRIs, fluoxetine (Prozac), citalopram (Celexa) and sertraline (Zoloft), which have similar pharmacologic profiles and similar mechanisms of activity, and mirtazapine (Remeron).

Relapse occurred in 39% of the patients in the maintenance group, while 56% of the patients in the discontinuation group relapsed. Quality-of-life measures and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and medication withdrawal were generally worse in patients who discontinued their ADs. “By the end of the trial, 39% of the patients in the discontinuation group had returned to taking an antidepressant prescribed by their clinician.” See the figures below.

In a critique published in The BMJ of Lewis, Marston et al, Mark Horowitz, Joanna Moncrieff and Beth Parkin said their conclusion that continuing antidepressants reduced the chance of relapse was not warranted. “Because the authors neglected to account for the possibility of antidepressant withdrawal effects being mis-classified as relapse, a fundamental problem in discontinuation trials.” Although the antidepressants were discontinued more slowly than in previous studies, the 8 weeks of discontinuation was still a relatively short taper for patients who had been taking the drugs for more than 2 years. While the approach was consistent with recommendations at the time of the trial (half the dose for one month, then half the dose every second day for one month, before stopping), they are no longer in line with the current guidance from the Royal College of Psychiatrists on Stopping antidepressants.

Antidepressant withdrawal symptoms overlap with most domains of the depression scale used to detect relapse in the study. There was also a high correlation between mean differences on the withdrawal scale and means differences on the depression scale and anxiety scale. “Together, with the overlap of withdrawal symptoms with measures of mood and relapse, this suggests that the withdrawal symptoms may account for the increase in symptom scores and relapse rate.” The reverse would be unlikely, since withdrawal symptoms included physical symptoms that were not intrinsically related to depression—dizziness, electric shocks, and headache. “Occam’s razor would suggest one condition causes several symptoms rather than requiring several conditions.”

Confounding withdrawal with relapse is consistent with the finding that most relapses occurred when withdrawal effects were at their peak, “within 6-12 weeks of when the drugs were stopped (at week 8).” Ninety percent of the total difference in relapse rates between the two arms of the study were present 12 weeks after the drugs were stopped, although this accounts for only 27% of the total follow-up time. Additionally, patients stopping fluoxetine had fewer withdrawal effects than other antidepressants, likely because of its longer elimination half-life. These patients relapsed 25% less than people stopping citalopram and sertraline, “again suggesting withdrawal effects.”

Anxiety and depression scores were the same for both groups at the end of the study. While 44% of the discontinued group had returned to their medication by this time, there was no difference in symptom scores—even with twice as many people on antidepressants in the maintenance group. “This suggests that discontinuation of antidepressants did not worsen mood after the period in which withdrawal symptoms had settled.” There were only small differences in DESS scores (Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms) by the end of the 52 week study. Lastly, 71% of the patients in the discontinuation group correctly guessed their allocation to placebo; possibly because of experiencing withdrawal symptoms and then expecting they would get worse.

As there was no effort made to manage the potential confounding of relapse by withdrawal the current study suffers the same flaws as previous discontinuation studies and cannot provide evidence of the benefits of long-term treatment, only the difficulties of stopping it. The authors could resolve some of these concerns by analysing the correlation of withdrawal symptoms with mood scores and relapse amongst individual patients to verify if withdrawal symptoms might account for relapse. They could also re-analyse their data by excluding patients who experienced significant withdrawal symptoms (e.g. modified DESS ≥ 2) from qualifying for a diagnosis of relapse. This would provide a more robust measure of relapse, reducing the potential for the misclassification of relapse as withdrawal. They could also test whether unblinding was associated with relapse.Uncritical interpretation of this study may lead to the erroneous conclusion that antidepressants should be continued to prevent relapse, when in reality all they may be doing is preventing withdrawal symptoms. The more accurate conclusion would be that such symptoms are temporary withdrawal symptoms that can be minimised by stopping the drug more gradually, as recognised by the authors in media interviews, although not in the published paper.

Additional responses in The BMJ supported these points. Bryan Shapiro said, “Dr. Horowitz offers a valid critique of this discontinuation trial—that is, the confounding of illness relapse with antidepressant withdrawal symptoms.” Gary Singh Marlowe said, “For many patients who have been on anti-depressants for more than a few years a 2-month tapering period is insufficient.” Singh Marlowe said practitioners like him have “become increasingly aware that many of the symptoms these patients experience on stopping their anti-depressants are due to the drug withdrawal itself rather than a return of the ‘illness.’” See “Withdrawal Symptoms Cloud Findings of Antidepressant ‘Relapse’ Trial” by Peter Simon on the Mad in America website for more discussion of the Horowitz, Moncrieff and Parkin critique.

Concern that antidepressant withdrawal symptoms are being confounded with relapse symptoms of depression are not just coming from Mad in America and Horowitz, Moncrieff and Parkin. The Mental Elf reported on a systematic review done by the Cochrane Common Mental Health Disorders group on studies where antidepressants were taken for 6 months or more and then discontinued. Relapse rather than discontinuation was the primary outcome for 31 of 33 studies. Only one study reported data on withdrawal symptoms.

All included trials were at high risk of bias. The main limitation of the review is bias due to confounding withdrawal symptoms with symptoms of relapse of depression. Withdrawal symptoms (such as low mood, dizziness) may have an effect on almost every outcome including adverse events, quality of life, social functioning, and severity of illness.

Because of this flaw, the Cochrane group was not able to conclude whether any of the discontinuation strategies were safe and effective, also noting none of them employed tapering protocols beyond a few weeks. The Cochrane authors also doubted the validity of the evidence base for antidepressant continuation, as it depended “on the same and similar studies thoroughly confounded by withdrawal, which is probably mistaken for relapse.”

Consequently, it is unclear to what degree misclassified withdrawal symptoms contributed to “relapse” rates. Research suggests this could pertain to most relapses (El-Mallakh 2012; Greenhouse 1991; Hengartner 2020; Recalt 2019; Rosenbaum 1988). Moreover, withdrawal symptoms may have an effect on almost every outcome including adverse events, quality of life, social functioning, severity of illness, and anxiety and depression scores. For example, low mood and other withdrawal symptoms may register on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) – the prioritised measure for depressive symptoms – and may result in people falsely allocated to having “severe” depressive symptoms.

Based on the review, the Cochrane review authors advised clinicians that:

  • Because of confounds, the evidence is unreliable for either discontinuation approach or risk of relapse after discontinuation.
  • It is unclear how long antidepressant treatment has to be maintained after remission. Current guidelines are based on consensus rather than evidence.
  • Evidence is lacking for appropriate discontinuation approaches for those who do not have “recurrent” depression, the elderly, and those taking antidepressants for anxiety.
  • The effect of short tapering regimens (≤ 4 weeks) was similar to abrupt discontinuation. Clinicians should expect to taper much slower, perhaps using liquid drug forms or tapering strips, while closely monitoring for withdrawal symptoms.
  • To taper effectively, clinicians will need to recognise withdrawal symptoms. Withdrawal symptoms differ from relapse or recurrence in timing of onset (within days rather than weeks), a rapid reversal after reintroduction of the antidepressant, and the emergence of somatic and psychological symptoms different from the original illness (e.g. shock-like sensations, dizziness, pronounced insomnia). Utilising the Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms (DESS) Scale (PDF) may be helpful in monitoring reductions in dosage. When the patient’s DESS score returns to baseline after a reduction, further reduction is appropriate.
  • Mark Horowitz, who is a researcher and psychiatrist, was quoted in an article discussing the Cochrane review on Mad in America. He said:

For me, this is such a critical issue both from a personal and a professional perspective. I’m one of the hundreds of thousands of people who have had or are having long, difficult, and harrowing battles coming off long-term depressants because of the severity of the withdrawal effects. And yet, rather than being able to find or access any high-quality evidence or clinical guidance in this situation, I could only find useful information on peer support sites where people who had gone through withdrawal from antidepressants themselves have been forced to become lay experts. Since then, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has taken a great step forward in putting out guidance on Stopping Antidepressants in 2020. However, there is still a lack of research and, therefore, evidence in this area on what works for different people. I want other people to have the evidence base to come off without the same trouble I had.

American psychiatry has fallen behind Britain in protecting its citizens from the potential for iatrogenic harm of antidepressants. In May of 2018, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Prescribed Drug Dependence published “Antidepressant Dependency and Withdrawal.” At the bottom of the first page is a disclaimer that says this is not an official publication of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. Yet it seems to have influenced the Royal College of Psychiatrists to make public the above linked information for anyone who wants to know more about “Stopping Antidepressants in 2020.”

The Executive Summary of “Antidepressant Dependency Withdrawal” said it was incorrect to view antidepressant withdrawal as largely mild, self-limiting (typically resolving between 1-2 weeks) and of short duration. Available research showed that antidepressant withdrawal reactions are widespread, with incidence rates ranging from 27% to 86%. Nearly half of those experiencing withdrawal described it as severe. Approximately 25% of antidepressant users experienced withdrawal reactions for at least 3 months after cessation; many experienced AD withdrawal for longer than 6 months.

Antidepressants fulfill the criteria for dependency-forming medications within the DSM, the ICD, and the WHO’s definition of dependency. “It is more reasonable to classify antidepressants as potentially dependency-forming medications than not.” Not only do they cause withdrawal in a large proportion of users, there is evidence antidepressants generate tolerance in up to 25% of users. About a third of antidepressant users report being “addicted”, according to their own understanding of the concept.

“The escalation of long-term antidepressant use combined with the misdiagnosis of withdrawal reactions warrants serious concern.” The length of AD use has doubled over the past decade, fueling a rise in prescriptions for the drugs. The evidence suggests this lengthening duration may be partly rooted in “the underestimation of the incidence, severity and duration of AD withdrawal reactions.” This underestimation may have led to many withdrawal reactions being misdiagnosed as relapse or as failure to respond to treatment with AD medications.

There is one final observation to make about the Lewis, Marston et al study. “Maintenance or Discontinuation of Antidepressants in Primary Care,” was of 150 general practices in the United Kingdom, and yet it was published in the prestigious American journal, The New England Journal of Medicine. I wonder if the researchers were attempting to reach a more receptive and less critical audience than if they had published in a prestigious British journal like The BMJ, which did publish the critique of Horowitz, Moncrieff and Parkin.

02/8/22

Are Antidepressants Worth the Risks?

© epitavi | 123rf.com

Business Insider published an article in 2016 with some startling statistics on the global use of antidepressants by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). They discovered that in all 25 countries, antidepressant use was increasing. “The increase in antidepressants consumption has spurred an ongoing debate [about] whether antidepressants are overprescribed (medicalization) or underprescribed (poor access to treatment).” The U.S. was not included in the OECD analysis, but if it had been, it would have topped the list, as the following chart indicates.

The chart suggested that 11% of Americans, 110 per 1,000 people, used antidepressants in 2016. But the use of antidepressants is not an accurate indicator of depression rates. In the U.S., for example, only about one third of people with severe depression take an antidepressant. Yet the use of antidepressants is rising.

The CDC reported that 13.2% of American adults used antidepressants in the past 39 days. Antidepressant use increased with age, from 7.9% among adults aged 18 to 39 to 19.0% for those aged 60 and over. Use was higher among women than men. Almost one-quarter of women aged 60 and over (24.3%) took antidepressants. See the follow figure from the CDC data brief.

The History of Antidepressants

Given the increased use of antidepressants globally and within the U.S., it seems some awareness of the history of antidepressants and their potential side effects would be helpful. In an article for Psychology Today, Mark Ruffalo gave a brief history of antidepressants in his discussion of Prozac (fluoxetine). He saw the introduction of that drug in 1987, the first SSRI, as a “game changing” event in the history of psychiatry.

The search for a drug to specifically target depression began in the 1950s and led to the monoamine hypothesis of depression. The monoamine hypothesis suggested depression was associated with a deficiency in the monoamine systems of serotonin, noradrenaline and dopamine. In the 1960s and 1970s, psychiatry believed norepinephrine played a central role with affective disorders. “Serotonin’s role was minimized and seen only as ancillary to norepinephrine.”

Tricyclic antidepressants such as Tofranil (imipramine) and Elavil (amitriptyline) were brought to market. They block the reabsorption (reuptake) of serotonin and norepinephrine, increasing the levels of these two neurotransmitters in the brain. But there are side effects such drowsiness, blurred vision, constipation, dry mouth, light headedness, sexual problems, and others. Given the multiple adverse effects, tricyclics were only prescribed for the more severe cases of depression. But that all changed with Prozac.

In the early 1970s, the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly began to investigate the possibility of developing an antidepressant drug that avoided the potential cardiovascular risks associated with some of the earlier tricyclic antidepressants (like imipramine and amitriptyline). The Lilly team, which included the Hong Kong-born biochemist David Wong, synthesized several chemicals derived from an antihistamine called diphenhydramine (found in Benadryl and over-the-counter sleeping aids like Tylenol PM). Wong, who was familiar with European research implicating serotonin in mood regulation, encouraged the team to screen their newly synthesized chemicals for any that might selectively inhibit the reuptake of serotonin. On July 24, 1972, they found one [fluoxetine].

A few years later, Eli Lilly filed an application with the FDA to investigate fluoxetine’s potential to treat clinical depression. Ruffalo said initial expectations were modest. In December of 1987, fluoxetine, now branded as Prozac, received FDA approval. “Within a few months, Prozac sales outpaced the market leader Pamelor (a tricyclic), as physicians believed that Prozac was both safer and avoided the weight gain common with the tricyclics.” Prozac became the best-selling antidepressant of all time.

With Prozac’s mass success, a new type of depressed patient emerged: the mildly depressed. For hundreds of years, depression (historically termed melancholia), was considered a rare and serious disease, usually only observed in psychiatric inpatients. Because Prozac was so safe—and the risk of drug-drug interactions minimal—doctors began prescribing it to patients with milder symptoms, those to whom they might have hesitated to prescribe a tricyclic. Patients who would have been treated in psychotherapy instead started on Prozac. A biological revolution was well underway.

More SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) came to market. Zoloft (1991) and Paxil (1992) were followed by the release of the so-called SNRIs (serotonin-norepinepherine reuptake inhibitors) such as Effexor (venlafaxine, 1993) and Cymbalta (duloxetine, 2004). Pfizer, the manufacturer of Zoloft, spearheaded the claim in drug advertising that a “chemical imbalance” caused depression, which SSRIs like Prozac and Zoloft corrected.

In 1993, Peter Kramer published Listening to Prozac, which became a New York Times bestseller. In addition to lifting depression, he suggested these new drugs could be used as personality enhancers. “Kramer raised the possibility that, in addition to lifting depression, Prozac could also brighten a dull personality, assist an ambitious employee in climbing the corporate ladder, and make a shy person lively and outgoing.” Public interest in the drug piqued, and in 1993 sales increased 15%. At this point in time, SSRIs are the first-line pharmacotherapy for major depression, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder and post traumatic stress disorder.

SSRI antidepressants are now one of the three most commonly used therapeutic classes of drugs in the U.S. And their long-term use has been steadily increasing as well. In 2014 the CDC reported that 68% of persons who used antidepressants had done so for 2 years or more; 19% between 5 and 10 years; and 25.3% had been using antidepressants for 10 years or more. See the figure below.

The Consequences of Overprescribing Antidepressants

The popularity of antidepressants has led to concern that they are being overprescribed. Allen Frances, who is a Professor and Chair Emeritus of the Department of Psychiatry, Duke University, noted that most antidepressants are now off patent and their popularity cannot be attributed to the marketing of pharmaceutical manufacturers. He said general practitioners, not psychiatrists, write most of the prescriptions.

Often they must do so after rushed visits with patients they don’t know very well; who frequently present on one of the worst days of their lives; with nonspecific symptoms of stress, depression, or anxiety. The quickest way to get a worried patient out of the consulting room is to write a prescription.

Research has shown that between one-third and one-half of patients taking antidepressants long-term have no evidence-based reason to be using them. Frances said there are two reasons patients stay on antidepressants who don’t really need them. The first is because of misattribution. Someone who feels better after starting antidepressants will likely assume the pills caused the improvement—not realizing that most mild symptoms are stress-related and are likely to go away on their own. “Stopping pills that never were, or are no longer, necessary is hard to do once the person believes they have worked.”

The second reason people stay on antidepressants long-term is because of the withdrawal symptoms that occur when these medications are stopped too abruptly, after prolonged use and at higher doses. These symptoms can include: lethargy, sadness, anxiety, irritability, trouble concentrating, sleep problems, nightmares, nausea, dizziness, and strange sensations, like brain zaps. They can also continue for a long time. Frances cited a report to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Prescribed Drug Dependence, which said:

The available research shows that antidepressant withdrawal reactions are widespread, with incidence rates (i.e. the percentage of antidepressant users experiencing withdrawal) ranging from 27% to 86%, and with nearly half of those experiencing withdrawal describing these reactions as severe. Available research also indicates that withdrawal effects are not ‘self-limiting’ (i.e. typically resolving between 1-2 weeks). Rather, between approx. 25% of users experience AD withdrawal reactions (such as raised anxiety) for at least 3 months after cessation, with many experiencing AD withdrawal for longer than 6 months.

Another Psychology Today article titled, “An Epidemic of Antidepressants,” said the beneficial evidence for antidepressants was ambiguous and there is increasing evidence that their risks have been underestimated. The author suggested the fundamental reason why antidepressants are so widely prescribed is that they fit the ‘medical model’ of mental illness, now the standard view in western culture.

This model sees depression as a medical condition which can be “fixed” in the same way as a physical injury or illness. In a more general way, this fits with our culture’s materialistic assumption that the mind is just a product of the brain, and our mental functioning can be entirely explained in terms of neurological factors.

This is a simplistic and dangerous way of viewing depression, which the overuse of antidepressants shows.  Noted by the author, there are many other contributing factors to depression, such as: an unsatisfactory social environment, relationship problems, the frustration of basic needs (for self-esteem, belonging, or self-actualization), a lack of meaning and purpose in life, oppression or unfair treatment, negative or self-critical thinking patterns (related to low self-esteem), a lack of contact with nature, poor diet, and more.

Lack of Evidence for Antidepressants

As it turns out, the evidence for the effectiveness of antidepressants seems to have been exaggerated. In 2018 a study published by the University of Oxford reviewed over 500 international trials and found a consistent benefit of antidepressants to placebos. However, the study used the Hamilton Depression Scale on which participants overall score can range from 0 to 52. Antidepressants only reduced the severity of depression an average of less than 2 points, which is not clinically relevant. See “The Lancet Story on Antidepressants, Part 2” for more on this.

A 2008 meta-analysis by Irving Kirsch showed no significant difference between leading antidepressants and placebos. The findings of this study have been reproduced several times, and cannot be easily dismissed. He found that 82% of the response to antidepressants was due to placebo. See  “Listening to Antidepressants” and “Dirty Little Secret” for more on Irving Kirsch and his research.

Researchers who analyzed the data for all randomized placebo-controlled depression drug clinical trials submitted to the FDA found that almost half (49%) had no significant improvement over inert placebos. Whether the studies were published and how the results were reported were strongly related to their overall outcomes. Of the 36 studies whose results were negative or questionable, only 3 were published as not positive. Twenty-two were not published and 11 (in the opinion of the researchers) were published as having positive results, when the FDA thought their finding were negative.

The evidence for the benefits of antidepressants is ambiguous, while their risks have been minimized. “It is well known that SSRIs may have some significant side effects, such as fatigue, weight gain, emotional flatness, loss of libido, insomnia, and agitation.” This raises the question of whether the continued use of antidepressants is worth the risks for the vast majority of those who use them.

06/22/21

Drugs Do Not Fix Chemical Imbalances

© lightwise | 123rf.com

Researchers at Harvard’s McLean Hospital observed that the public perception of mental illness was increasingly understood in neurobiological and genetic terms. There is some evidence that these explanations had an unintended consequence of reducing optimism for recovery among individuals with depression. Despite this, very little is known about how these beliefs interact with the treatment process and outcomes in a psychiatric treatment setting. They wanted to know if the language used affected treatment protocols and patient expectations. They found that believing depression was caused by a chemical imbalance was related to poorer treatment expectations.

In fact, they found that more depressed individuals showed a stronger relationship between chemical imbalance beliefs and lower treatment expectations. In “The dangers of the chemical imbalance theory of depression,” Derek Beres noted while the chemical marker serotonin is correlated with depression, it does not cause depression. “Decade after decade, however, we’ve been marketed the idea that chemical imbalance is the culprit behind depression.”

Instead of doctors diagnosing patients, they increasingly confirm what the patient suspected all along. The patients self-diagnose because they saw an advertisement or listened to a friend. Doctors too often comply without further investigating of the reasons for their reported distress. Medicalizing mental health softens the stigma of depression, but it also disempowers the patient. In “Stressors and chemical imbalances: Beliefs about the causes of depression in an acute psychiatric treatment sample,” the McLean researchers wrote:

More recent studies indicate that participants who are told that their depression is caused by a chemical imbalance or genetic abnormality expect to have depression for a longer period, report more depressive symptoms, and feel they have less control over their negative emotions.

Doctors, media, and advertising come together with a similar message. Everyday blues is a real medical condition, everyone is susceptible to clinical depression, and drugs correct the underlying physical conditions. Counseling aimed at self-insight seems to serve little purpose. The McLean team of researchers found patients expected little from psychotherapy and a great deal from pills. “When depression is treated as the result of an internal and immutable essence instead of environmental conditions, behavioral changes are not expected to make much difference.”

Doctor Ronald Pies referred to and cited “Stressors and chemical imbalances” in his January article in Psychiatric Times, “What We Tell Patients about Depression, and What They Say They Have Been Told.” Pies said the study found that the most commonly endorsed explanations for depression were psychosocial explanations, not “the chemical imbalance notion.” He said popular beliefs about the cause of depression could be adopted from a variety of sources, including television advertisements and anti-stigma campaigns promoting biogenetic explanations. These beliefs could also come from individual treatment experience. “All of this is simply to note that popularization of the chemical imbalance canard is almost certainly an over-determined effect, in which the role of psychiatrists (or other clinicians) is but 1 possible causal factor.”

But he seems to have glossed over the primary finding of “Stressors and chemical imbalances.” Patients who believe a chemical imbalance or genetic abnormality caused their depression do worse. The results of the study’s abstract said:

We found that although psychosocial explanations of depression were most popular, biogenetic beliefs, particularly the belief that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance, were prevalent in this sample. Further, the chemical imbalance belief related to poorer treatment expectations. This relationship was moderated by symptoms of depression, with more depressed individuals showing a stronger relationship between chemical imbalance beliefs and lower treatment expectations. Finally, the chemical imbalance belief predicted more depressive symptoms after the treatment program ended for a 2-week measure of depression (but not for a 24-hour measure of depression), controlling for psychiatric symptoms at admission, inpatient hospitalizations, and treatment expectations.

“Stressors and chemical imbalances” was not critiquing psychiatry for spreading the chemical imbalance theory, which Pies has called a kind of urban legend. The researchers examined etiological beliefs about depression and studied how they were related to treatment expectations and outcomes. If you believed in the chemical imbalance theory of depression, you tended to have poorer treatment outcomes. But that isn’t the only problem with believing in this “urban legend.”

Consequences of Believing in a Chemical Imbalance

 

Dutch researchers interviewed people who were given medical advice to discontinue antidepressants. The participants’ use of antidepressants was determined to be “not indicated” based upon clinical practice guidelines. This meant that participants had no current mental health diagnoses, no history of recurring mental health problems, and they had been taking antidepressants longer than nine months. Reporting on the study for Mad in America, Peter Simons said that despite receiving advice to discontinue, more than half refused to stop taking their antidepressant. The researchers identified two significant barriers to discontinuation.

The first was fear that if they ever stopped taking antidepressants, they would not be able to cope with the rebound depression. One of the participants said: “That’s my biggest fear. The misery I was in, before I got these medicines. I never want to relive that. I never want to go back to how I felt then. And because of this fear, I just can’t attempt to stop them.” Another person said if she would remain well, she would quit tomorrow. “But . . . to go through the hell I went through again? No.”

The second barrier was a belief in the serotonin deficiency theory, the chemical imbalance theory. The participants described their antidepressant use as supplying a deficient substance they needed to function normally. This resulted in their acceptance of a lifelong dependency. “I just need it. For me, this isn’t a psychological illness, it’s physical. And my body isn’t able to make enough serotonin, so I take the pill to supply it.”

There was a comparison to diabetes by her doctor reported by one participant.

She (the GP) told me, you should see it like you have a deficiency in your brain, you miss a certain substance and the medicine supplies it. She told me it’s just like someone with diabetes who needs insulin for the rest of their life. Well, I kind of believe that, so never questioned my use since.

The Dutch researchers said the biological model for depression seemed to backfire:

Another important barrier was the notion that antidepressants are necessary to supply the deficient serotonin. This serotonin deficiency resulted in patients expecting continued use of their medication. Presumably this is the result of the explanation the GPs gave to their patients at first prescription, or at least what patients (choose to) remember. The biological model for depression seems to backfire, making it difficult to persuade the patient to discontinue the drug. This is an important and new finding. GPs must keep this in mind while explaining the course of treatment for depressive and anxiety disorders. On the other hand, uneasiness with the perception of a biological cause could enhance attempts to stop antidepressants.

The chemical imbalance theory of depression is a false, unfounded report. For decades, the idea has been falsely marketed to consumers that a chemical imbalance is the culprit behind depression. Even psychiatrists, as seen with Dr. Pies, want to distance themselves from this “canard.” This urban legend is associated with poorer treatment outcomes and leads individuals with no apparent clinical need to remain on antidepressants instead of tapering off of them. We need to ask, how did we get here?

In his interview for Scientific American, “Has the Drug-Based Approach to Mental Illness Failed?”, Robert Whitaker described his journey away from the conventional understanding that depression and schizophrenia were caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, to founding the webzine, Mad in America.

Whitaker said he is convinced that psychiatric medications cause net harm when used over the long term. “I wish that weren’t the case, but the evidence just keeps mounting that these drugs, on the whole, worsen long-term outcomes.” Increasingly, he is not sure the medications provide real a short-term benefit either. “When you look at the short-term studies of antidepressants and antipsychotics, the evidence of efficacy in reducing symptoms compared to placebo is really pretty marginal, and fails to rise to the level of a ‘clinically meaningful’ benefit.” His concern and the concern of Mad in America has grown beyond studies with psychiatric medications:

Mad in America’s mission is to serve as a catalyst for rethinking psychiatric care in the United States (and abroad). We believe that the current drug-based paradigm of care has failed our society, and that scientific research, as well as the lived experience of those who have been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, calls for profound change.

He thinks our society organized itself with regard to mental illness around a false narrative presented as a narrative of science. In the early 1980s, we began to hear that psychiatric disorders were cause by chemical imbalances in the brain; and that like insulin did for diabetes, there was a new generation of psychiatric medications that could fix those imbalances. “We came to believe that there was a sharp line between the ‘normal’ brain and the ‘abnormal’ brain, and that it was medically helpful to screen for these illnesses, and that psychiatric drugs were very safe and effective, and often needed to be taken for life.”

But what can be seen clearly today is that this narrative was a marketing story, not a scientific one. It was a story that psychiatry, as an institution, promoted for guild purposes, and it was a story that pharmaceutical companies promoted for commercial reasons. Science actually tells a very different story: the biology of psychiatric disorders remains unknown; the disorders in the DSM have not been validated as discrete illnesses; the drugs do not fix chemical imbalances but rather perturb normal neurotransmitter functions; and even their short-term efficacy is marginal at best.

The above quotes from participants in the Dutch study and the quote on how the biological model for depression backfired, are found in the research article published in Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology, “Patients’ attitudes to discontinuing not-indicated long-term antidepressant use.”

12/31/19

Keeping ALKS 5461 Out of the Spotlight?

© Daniil Peshkov | 123rf.com

Alkermes has been stubbornly attempting to gain FDA approval for ALKS 5461 as an adjunctive treatment for major depression. After the FDA informed Alkermes it was refusing to review the NDA (New Drug Application) for ALKS 5461 on March 30, 2018, it rescinded its refuse-to-file letter, and said it would review an NDA for ALKS 5461. The target action date was set for January 31, 2019. The Chief Medical Officer at Alkermes noted there have been no new pharmacological treatment approaches for depression in 30 years and said, “FDA’s filing of the ALKS 5461 application is a positive step forward for patients suffering from major depressive disorder.”

Strategically, at the end of October 2018 Molecular Psychiatry published an article that indicated buprenorphine/samidorphan (ALKS 5461) was “a promising potential adjunctive treatment for patients with MDD.” In one clinical trial, FORWARD-5, adjunctive ALKS 5461 (BUP/SAM 2mg/2mg) consistently reduced depression symptoms compared to placebo across multiple timepoints in patients continuing their current antidepressant therapy (ADT). And it met the primary endpoints of reducing core and overall depression symptoms. In the previous FORWARD-4 clinical trial the primary endpoint of change was not statistically significant; it failed to meet its primary endpoint of change. But in post hoc analysis it did demonstrate greater reduction in MADRS-10 scores than placebo at all timepoints in both stages. “Reductions in symptom scores at multiple timepoints are consistent with the observed efficacy in FORWARD-5.”

This post hoc-analysis was bit like cheating, in that it reanalyzed the data from FORWARD-4 after the fact, and found one aspect of the trial with a significant result. Alkermes used the finding to “update” their methodology for FORWARD-5 to match the post-hoc analysis. It then attempted to argue that despite failing to meet its primary endpoints in the two previous phase III clinical trials, the FDA should approve ALKS 5461. See “The ‘Hotel California’ Effect” and “Nearsighted Drug Development” for more on the problems with this process.

Then on November 1, 2018 the results of the meeting of two combined FDA committees, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee was released. The Committee voted unfavorably for ALKS 5461. There were three core questions. Has there been substantial evidence presented to support the effectiveness of ALKS for adjunctive treatment of major depression? The vote was against the first question, 20 to 3. The second question was: Has Alkermes adequately characterized the safety profile of ALKS 5461 for adjunctive treatment of major depression? The vote was for the question, 13-10. The third question was also answered negatively, Do the data show a favorable benefit-risk profile of ALKS 5461 to support approval? The vote was against, 21 to 2.

Healio Psychiatry went on to note several concerns of the Committee. The FDA did not agree with Alkermes that the studies met the standard for substantial evidence for effectiveness. Three of the studies used a novel study design: a 2-stage, sequential parallel comparison meant to reduce the higher placebo response often seen in antidepressant studies. This was the first time a sequential parallel comparison design was submitted to the FDA to provide evidence of efficacy for a new drug. “This design has not yet been determined to be statistically acceptable to the FDA.”

Usually studies for antidepressant treatments examine an efficacy endpoint at a specific time point following several weeks of therapy, according to the FDA. These trials achieved primary endpoint because researchers averaged patients’ depression symptoms over multiple weeks, which is not standard for antidepressant trials. Although averaging scores from multiple weeks can reduce the symptom changes that often vary over time throughout treatment, scores at the final time point carry less weight.Although one of the phase 3 studies met its primary endpoint, the committees expressed worry because the trial investigators used an abridged 6-item version of the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale-10 for the primary endpoint of this principal study. The FDA’s Clinical Outcomes Assessment staff believe MADRS-6 cannot replace the MADRS-10 because it excludes concepts important in major depression, like reduced sleep, reduced appetite, concentration difficulties and suicidal thoughts, according to the review.

So MADRS-6 would not include data on the excluded depressive symptoms such as reduced sleep, and appetite, concentration problems, and significantly, suicidal ideation. Averaging scores would hide a pattern of progressively lower scores throughout the trial, suggesting the antidepressant effect of ALKS 5461 gets weaker over time and will eventually be no better than placebo—not the efficacy pattern to demonstrate when trying to have a NME approved by the FDA. Given the novelty of the methodology used in these clinical trials and the significance of the excluded depression symptoms, the FDA made it clear to Alkermes that any studies using the MADRS-6 would be “considered exploratory.”

The use of an opioid, buprenorphine, was also a concern of the committee. Given the growing opioid epidemic, there were concerns about use, misuse and abuse of buprenorphine. Predicting what might happen in patients being treated for depression is challenging due to the high-risk nature of the populations being treated. “It is not known whether similar misuse and abuse patterns will be seen.”

Finally on February 1, 2019, the FDA said it was not able to approve ALKS 5461 in its present form and requested additional clinical data (likely another clinical trial) to provide substantial evidence for its effectiveness. A review of the Alkermes website on October 12, 2019 failed to see ALKS 5461 listed in its Pipeline under Research and Development. But that doesn’t mean Alkermes has given up on it. There are two active clinical trials for ALKS 5461 listed on Clinical Trials.gov; one of which is recruiting. Its primary outcome measure is a change from baseline in the MADRS scores; the time frame is 11 weeks. The other trial is by invitation, and is a long-term study. The time frame is up to 68 weeks. Both are projected to be completed in 2021 and both have been updated after the FDA sent its complete response letter on February 1st.

It could be that Alkermes terminated these clinical trials after the FDA response letter, but why update the information on ClinicalTrials.gov? If Alkermes is still working on the studies, why does it not have ALKS 5461 listed in its Pipeline? It does not seem that ALKS 5461 is dead yet. One of the studies (clinical trial NCT03188185) apparently plans to use the same parallel assignment method used in FORWARD-4, which the FDA said it had not yet determined was statistically acceptable. The MADRS will be used for its primary and secondary outcome measures, but does not specify whether it will be MADRS-6 or MADRS-10. One of the listed outcome measures is the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, for suicidal ideation and behavior, but that isn’t necessarily suggestive Alkermes plans to use the MADRS-6.

It is possible that Alkermes is going ahead with a final attempt to gain FDA approval for ALKS 5461, but is trying to keep its efforts quiet and out of the media spotlight. We’ll have to wait and see.

08/13/19

Following the Leader with Antidepressants

© lightwise | 123rf.com

In February of 2018 the international debate on antidepressants was renewed when James Davies, a co-founder of the Council for Evidence-Based Psychiatry (CEP), and his coauthors published a letter in the Times on the benefits and harms of antidepressants. This was in response to a study done by Cipriani et al that found all the 21 antidepressants reviewed to be more effective than placebo. Carmine Pariante of the Royal College of Psychiatrists said: “This meta-analysis finally puts to bed the controversy on anti-depressants, clearly showing that these drugs do work in lifting mood and helping most people with depression.” In response, the Council for Evidence-Based Psychiatry said that statement was “irresponsible and unsubstantiated, as the study actually supports what has been known for a long time,” namely that the differences between placebo and antidepressant are so minor that they are clinically insignificant. It created a media and professional firestorm that has yet to burn out, and even led to some strategic retreats by organizations like the RCP that originally hailed the results.

CEP noted how the individuals in the referenced studies were not in truly blinded clinical trials. “Most people on antidepressants experience some noticeable physical or mental alterations, and as a consequence realise they are on the active drug.” This then boosts the placebo effect, adding further questions about the so-called effectiveness of antidepressants. Irving Kirsch has published several studies demonstrating the significance of the placebo effect with antidepressants. For more on the Cipraini et al study, see  “The Lancet Story on Antidepressants,” Part 1 and Part 2. For more on Irving Kirsch and the placebo effect, see  “Dirty Little Secret.”

Additionally, the trials only addressed short-term use of antidepressants (8 weeks), not the long-term use which is more typical. “Around 50% of patients have been taking antidepressants for more than two years, and the study tells us nothing about their effects over the long term. In fact, there is no evidence that long-term use has any benefits, and in real-world trials (STAR-D study) outcomes are very poor.” STAR*D was the largest, longest and most expensive study of antidepressants ever conducted.

James Davies and John Read (also a member of CEP) published a systematic review in the journal Addictive Behaviors that showed antidepressant withdrawal was “more widespread, severe and long-lasting than indicated by current guidelines.” The review indicated that an average of 56% of patients who stop or reduce their antidepressants experience withdrawal symptoms, a significant proportion of whom experienced them for more than two weeks. “It is not uncommon for patients to experience symptoms for several weeks, months, or longer.” One study said 40% of patients experience symptoms for at least six weeks; another indicated that 25% experience symptoms for at least 3 months. Davies said the new review indicated what patients have known for years, “That withdrawal from antidepressants often causes severe, debilitating symptoms which can last for weeks, months or longer.”

Davies and Read noted in their paper that an implication of the higher incidence of antidepressant withdrawal and longer duration added credence to concerns that doctors were misdiagnosing antidepressant withdrawal as treatment failure. “Re-emergent symptoms of depression and anxiety are a regular feature of antidepressant withdrawal itself.” They pointed out where the RCP’s own survey, “Coming Off Antidepressants” found that the withdrawal reaction was rated severe by most people, and approximately 25% of users reported experiencing anxiety for at least 3 months after stopping their antidepressant.

The President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Wendy Burn, published a letter in the Times that said “We know that in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment.” CEP challenged the Royal College of Psychiatrists and its president, stating they believed the statement was not evidence-based; that it misled the public. Further, they pointed out how within 48 hours of the misleading statement in the Times, the RCP removed “Coming Off Antidepressants” from its website. They suggested one interpretation of that action was the RCP was attempting keep the public from seeing evidence that contradicted what the RCP president claimed in the Times.

This was not just a dispute between CEP and the RCP over interpreting Cipriani et al. August of 2018 contained a one-two punch that broadened the debate over antidepressant ineffectiveness. The British Journal of Psychiatry published an editorial written by Gordon Parker, the founder of The Black Dog Institute,  “The benefits of antidepressants: news or fake news?” that said antidepressant trials were disconnected from the real world of clinical practice. Psychological Medicine published a study by de Vries et al that analyzed the cumulative effect of publication biases on the apparent efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression.

Asking if antidepressants are effective treatment for major depression is asking the wrong question. The problem, according to Gordon Parker, is that ‘major depression’ is a “domain diagnosis” for a variety of depressive illnesses. “Basically, the target diagnosis of major depression captures multiple types of depressions—some biological, some psychological, some social—and not all would be expected to respond to medication.” In other words, you lose the evidence for their effectiveness with biological causes by combining them with social and psychological ones. “For patients with depression, if you narrow down to those who have a biologically-based depressive sub-type, the antidepressants are distinctly effective.”

De Vries et al looked at the cumulative impact of biases upon on two effective treatments for depression: antidepressants and psychotherapy. They identified four major biases: study publication bias, outcome reporting bias, spin, and citation bias. Study publication bias involves not publishing an entire study. Outcome reporting bias refers to not publishing negative outcomes or switching the status of primary and secondary outcomes. “Both biases pose an important threat to the validity of meta-analyses.”

Spin uses reporting strategies that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers. Authors conclude the treatment is effective despite non-significant results on the primary outcome. For example, by focusing on statistical significance instead of clinical significance, researchers have confirmed the efficacy of several SSRIs. Another spin technique is instead of concluding a treatment was no more effective than placebo, researchers point out how a treatment was well tolerated and effective in a sub population of the original study, say patients who had not received prior therapy. Finally, with citation bias, studies with positive results receive more citations than negative studies. This leads to greater visibility of positive results and creates an obstacle to ensuring that negative findings can be discovered. De Vries et al concluded:

The problem of study publication bias is well-known. Our examination of antidepressant trials, however, shows the pernicious cumulative effect of additional reporting and citation biases, which together eliminated most negative results from the anti-depressant literature and left the few published negative results difficult to discover. These biases are unlikely to be unique to anti-depressant trials. We have already shown that similar processes, though more difficult to assess, occur within the psychotherapy literature, and it seems likely that the effect of these biases accumulates whenever they are present. Consequently, researchers and clinicians across medical fields must be aware of the potential for bias to distort apparent treatment efficacy, which poses a threat to the practice of evidence-based medicine.

In October of 2018 a reanalysis of the STAR*D study, supported the claim of antidepressant ineffectiveness. The STAR*D study, published in 2004, attempted to mimic real world patients, recruiting from routine outpatient treatment centers. Additionally, they did not exclude patients with comorbid diagnoses, as is typically cone in clinical trials. STAR*D was funded by the NIMH at a cost of $35 million dollars and took six years to complete. The reanalysis was done by Irving Kirsch and others. The improvement found in the reanalysis was roughly half of that seen in the standard comparative drug trials. In her review of the Kirsch-led reanalysis for Mad in America, Joanna Moncrieff said STAR*D suggested that “in real life situations (which the STAR-D mimicked better than other trials) people taking antidepressants do not do very well.”

For the vast majority of people, depression naturally remits. “It is difficult to believe that people treated with antidepressants do any better than people who are offered no treatment at all.” Moncrieff speculated this may be the reason why the results of the main outcome of the STAR*D study took so long to be published. For more on the STAR*D study, see “Antidepressant Fall from Grace, Part 2.”

Then in May of 2019, the Royal College of Psychiatrists changed its position on antidepressant withdrawal. It issued a revised policy statement updating its guidance to doctors. James Davies of CEP said the changes were welcome; and if acted upon, “will help reduce the harm that is being caused to huge numbers of patients through overprescribing, inadequate doctor training and often disastrous withdrawal management.” The College called for the following changes:

  • There should be greater recognition of the potential for severe and long-lasting withdrawal symptoms on and after stopping antidepressants in NICE guidelines and patient information
  • NICE should develop clear evidence-based and pharmacologically-informed recommendations to help guide gradual withdrawal from antidepressant use
  • The use of antidepressants should always be underpinned by a discussion with the patient about the potential level of benefits and harms, including withdrawal
  • Discontinuation of antidepressants should involve the dosage being tapered, which may occur over several months, and at a reduction rate that is tolerable for the patient
  • Monitoring is needed to distinguish the features of antidepressant withdrawal from emerging symptoms
  • Adequate support services should be commissioned for people affected by severe and prolonged antidepressant withdrawal, modelled on existing best practice
  • There should be routine monitoring on when and why patients are prescribed antidepressants
  • Training for doctors should be provided on appropriate withdrawal management
  • Research is needed into the benefits and harms of long-term antidepressant use

These changes by the RCP with regard to antidepressants are needed in the US as well. Antidepressant withdrawal is a real concern for some individuals. Routine monitoring of when and why patients are prescribed antidepressants is needed. Support services are needed for individuals who experience severe and prolonged withdrawal. There is a need to inform patients when prescribing antidepressants of the potential benefits as well as the potential harms—including withdrawal.

Research into the potential benefits and harms of long-term antidepressant use is needed. Discontinuation of antidepressants should be done slowly, taking its cue from how well the patient is tolerating the taper. Both the patient and doctor should carefully monitor the tapering process and strive to distinguish between symptoms of antidepressant withdrawal and emerging symptoms of the underlying depressive disorder. Doctors need to be trained in appropriate tapering and withdrawal management of antidepressants.

Drawing on the above discussion, we can add the need for greater awareness of the multiple types of depressions—some biological, some psychological, some social—and the need to freely acknowledge that antidepressants won’t work for everyone. Edward Shorter makes a compelling case for distinguishing between depression and melancholia in How Everyone Became Depressed. In the pursuit of developing the evidence base for the use of antidepressants and best practice guidelines, we need to systematically eliminate the impact of bias on the publication of research results with antidepressants. Admittedly this is a problem that extends beyond just antidepressant research, see “Clinical Trial Sleight-of-Hand,” “The Reproducibility Problem” and “Reproducibility in Science” for more information.

British psychiatrists have taken the first step towards correcting errors in how they use antidepressants. Hopefully they will persist in seeing that the recommended changes are implemented. American psychiatrists and physicians need to do the same. They need to follow the lead of the RCP.