Understanding the non-pharmacological correlates of self-reported efficacy of antidepressants

Depression: why drugs and electricity are not the answer

The dominant view within mental health services and research suggests that feeling depressed is a kind of medical illness, partially caused by various biological deficits which are somehow corrected by physical interventions. This article critically appraises evidence for the effectiveness and value of antidepressant drugs and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), the two principle physical treatments recommended for depression. It also describes the negative effects of these interventions and raises concerns about how they impact the brain. We propose an alternative understanding that recognises depression as an emotional and meaningful response to unwanted life events and circumstances. This perspective demands that we address the social conditions that make depression likely and suggests that a combination of politics and common sense needs to guide us in providing help for one another when we are suffering in this way. This alternative view is increasingly endorsed around the world, including by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and service users who have suffered negative consequences of physical treatments that modify brain functions in ways that are not well-understood.

How important are informed consent, informed choice, and patient-doctor relationships, when prescribing antipsychotic medication?

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medications (APs) are used for people with psychosis diagnoses and, increasingly for other problems and groups.

AIMS

This study examines how APs are prescribed, from the perspective of recipients.

METHODS

757 people, from 30 countries, responded to questions about their experiences with APs, in an online survey.

RESULTS

Most (70%) were told nothing about adverse effects. Fewer than 2% recalled being told about the risks of diabetes, suicidality, sexual dysfunction, or reduced life span. None recalled being told about reduced brain volume or withdrawal effects. Only 28% recalled being offered other treatments; with only 14% offered talking therapies. 46% were not told how long to take the APs; and, of those who were told something, 48% were told to take them forever. Most respondents (76%) were not told how APs work. Only 19% were satisfied with the prescribing process, and only 25% reported a good, or very good, relationship with the prescriber. Information, satisfaction with the process, and the prescriber relationship were all positively related to three self-reported outcomes: reduction of problems the drugs were prescribed for, general helpfulness, and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Steps need to be taken to ensure people prescribed antipsychotics are fully informed, especially about adverse effects and alternatives.

The Positive and Negative Experiences of 342 Antidepressant Users

Most efficacy and safety studies about medications adopt a quantitative approach, testing specific hypotheses with restricted samples. This online survey provides additional insights by directly asking people open questions. Thematic analysis was used to explore the responses of 342 antidepressant users to "Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your experience of taking medication". 59 (17.3%) made exclusively positive comments, 146 (42.7%) purely negative comments and 137 (40.0%) offered a mixture of positive and negative. Positive themes included: daily coping, life-changing/saving and stepping stone. Negative themes included: physical adverse effects, emotional and cognitive blunting, and withdrawal effects. Many participants also commented on relationships with prescribers. Collaboration was particularly valued. Negative sub-themes included failings in relation to information (especially about adverse effects and withdrawal), support, and alternatives. Clinicians have a duty to inform potential antidepressant users about positive and adverse effects, including withdrawal effects.

How common and severe are six withdrawal effects from, and addiction to, antidepressants? The experiences of a large international sample of patients

INTRODUCTION

The incidence and severity of withdrawal effects when coming off antidepressants (ADs) have recently received considerable attention. National guidelines on the topic have proven to be inaccurate. This paper reports the largest direct-to-patient international survey on these issues.

METHODS

Data generated by an online survey from 867 people from 31 countries, who had taken ADs continuously for at least one month, and had tried to come off (successfully or not) was analysed.

RESULTS

The majority (59%) had taken ADs for more than three years. Of those who were still taking them, 29% had been doing so for at least 20 years. 61% reported some degree of withdrawal effects, and 44% of these described the effects as 'severe'. The most common of six listed withdrawal effects were anxiety/panic (66%) and irritability (62%). The most common spontaneously reported 'other' withdrawal effect was suicidality (2%). 40% reported that they felt addicted, with 39% of these describing their addiction as 'severe'. Over half (55%) reported some degree of difficulty coming off, with 27% ticking 'very difficult', and 11% 'very easy'. Duration of treatment was related to withdrawal, addiction and difficulty coming off. Younger people experienced more frequent withdrawal effects. Only six people (0.7%) recalled being told anything about withdrawal, dependence or addiction by the initial prescriber.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings confirm previous studies, using a range of methodologies, finding high incidences of withdrawal effects, frequently at severe levels. National guidelines, and those of professional organisations, urgently need to be updated to reflect this evidence.

A survey of UK general practitioners about depression, antidepressants and withdrawal: implementing the 2019 Public Health England report

BACKGROUND

In 2019, a literature review indicated that more than half of people who try to come off antidepressants experience withdrawal effects. Both the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the Royal College of Psychiatrists updated their positions in line with that review, and Public Health England published a 152-page report called Dependence and withdrawal associated with some prescribed medicines: an evidence review. The report made several recommendations relevant to general practice.

METHOD

In order to facilitate implementation of these recommendations, an online survey was designed to explore United Kingdom general practitioner (GP) experiences, opinions, knowledge and needs in relation to depression, ADs and withdrawal. A total of 66 GPs had completed the survey when COVID-19 occurred.

RESULTS

In keeping with previous findings, this small sample of GPs had a predominantly psycho-social perspective on the causes of, and treatments for, depression. They broadly considered ADs effective for moderate/severe depression and ineffective for minimal/mild depression, for which they preferred psychological therapies and social prescribing. There was a marked lack of consistency in GPs' knowledge about the incidence and duration of withdrawal effects. Only a minority (29%) felt their knowledge about withdrawal was 'adequate' and fewer (17%) believed this about their 'Ability to distinguish between withdrawal effects and return of the original problem (e.g. depression)'. Two-thirds (68%) would like more training on these matters.

CONCLUSION

It is hoped that even this small sample will be helpful when designing, and seeking funding for, GP training programmes, and when implementing the PHE recommendations for support services, based in the primary care system, for the millions of people contemplating or initiating withdrawal from ADs every year in the UK.

How many of 1829 antidepressant users report withdrawal effects or addiction?

More than 10% of adults are prescribed antidepressants annually in some countries. Recent increases in prescribing can be explained more by repeat prescriptions than new patients. This raises the question of whether antidepressants are addictive. A total of 1829 New Zealanders who had been prescribed antidepressants completed an online survey; 44% had been taking antidepressants for more than 3 years and were still taking them. Withdrawal effects when stopping medication were reported by 55%, and addiction by 27%. Paroxetine had particularly high rates of withdrawal symptoms. Only 1% of participants recalled being told about withdrawal effects when prescribed the drugs. Such high rates of withdrawal symptoms suggest that all concerned, including mental health nurses, need to help people considering antidepressants to understand that it can be difficult to withdraw from them. It will also be beneficial to closely monitor people already taking antidepressants and who are at risk of long-term usage.

Efficacy of Sertraline in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder Naive to Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors: A 10-Week Randomized, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Academic Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of sertraline compared with placebo in a good clinical practice trial conducted with major depressive disorder patients naive to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

METHODS

This was a 10-week randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double blind, superiority trial. Adult patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria), total score of 19 to 36 in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), were randomly allocated to sertraline (n = 39) or placebo (n = 38). Each patient received a fixed dose of sertraline 50 mg/d or placebo for 4 weeks. Afterward a flexible dose up to 200 mg/d was allowed if needed. The primary efficacy end point was clinical response defined as 50% score reduction in HAMD-17 at 10 weeks relative to baseline. Supplementary analysis was performed on HAMD-17 score change from baseline.

FINDINGS

The clinical response favored sertraline (72% vs 32%; relative risk, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-3.78; P = 0.0006). A linear mixed model showed arm × time interaction was significant (likelihood ratio test χ on 7 df = 48.42, P < 0.0001). The HAMD-17 change score favored sertraline from week 8 onwards. The most frequent adverse events in the sertraline arm were headache, diarrheas, and weight loss.

IMPLICATIONS

In this trial, the benefit of sertraline compared with placebo appeared later than usual. The therapeutic process with a close doctor-patient relationship throughout the trial and the effect expectancy due to a new treatment might explain the response delay.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

RPCEC, ID no. 00000128.

Identifying the Underlying Factors Associated With Patients' Attitudes Toward Antidepressants: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Patient Drug Reviews

BACKGROUND

Nonadherence to antidepressants is a major obstacle to deriving antidepressants' therapeutic benefits, resulting in significant burdens on the individuals and the health care system. Several studies have shown that nonadherence is weakly associated with personal and clinical variables but strongly associated with patients' beliefs and attitudes toward medications. Patients' drug review posts in online health care communities might provide a significant insight into patients' attitude toward antidepressants and could be used to address the challenges of self-report methods such as patients' recruitment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to use patient-generated data to identify factors affecting the patient's attitude toward 4 antidepressants drugs (sertraline [Zoloft], escitalopram [Lexapro], duloxetine [Cymbalta], and venlafaxine [Effexor XR]), which in turn, is a strong determinant of treatment nonadherence. We hypothesized that clinical variables (drug effectiveness; adverse drug reactions, ADRs; perceived distress from ADRs, ADR-PD; and duration of treatment) and personal variables (age, gender, and patients' knowledge about medications) are associated with patients' attitude toward antidepressants, and experience of ADRs and drug ineffectiveness are strongly associated with negative attitude.

METHODS

We used both qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the dataset. Patients' drug reviews were randomly selected from a health care forum called askapatient. The Framework method was used to build the analytical framework containing the themes for developing structured data from the qualitative drug reviews. Then, 4 annotators coded the drug reviews at the sentence level using the analytical framework. After managing missing values, we used chi-square and ordinal logistic regression to test and model the association between variables and attitude.

RESULTS

A total of 892 reviews posted between February 2001 and September 2016 were analyzed. Most of the patients were females (680/892, 76.2%) and aged less than 40 years (540/892, 60.5%). Patient attitude was significantly (P<.001) associated with experience of ADRs, ADR-PD, drug effectiveness, perceived lack of knowledge, experience of withdrawal, and duration of usage, whereas oth age (F_4,874=0.72, P=.58) and gender (χ²₄=2.7, P=.21) were not found to be associated with patient attitudes. Moreover, modeling the relationship between variables and attitudes showed that drug effectiveness and perceived distress from adverse drug reactions were the 2 most significant factors affecting patients' attitude toward antidepressants.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' self-report experiences of medications in online health care communities can provide a direct insight into the underlying factors associated with patients' perceptions and attitudes toward antidepressants. However, it cannot be used as a replacement for self-report methods because of the lack of information for some of the variables, colloquial language, and the unstructured format of the reports.

The interpersonal adverse effects reported by 1008 users of antidepressants; and the incremental impact of polypharmacy

Antidepressant drugs are being prescribed at ever increasing rates internationally, despite marginal benefit compared to placebo and a range of adverse effects. Most studies of adverse effects focus on biological phenomena. This article presents the results of an online survey of 1008 self-selected anti-depressant users in Britain, which asked about five adverse effects in the interpersonal domain. The most commonly reported among participants who took only antidepressants were: Sex Life - 43.7%, Work or Study - 27.0% and Social Life - 23.5%. These rates of interpersonal adverse effects were even higher for the 52% of participants who were also taking one or more other psychiatric drugs. Only about a half (48%) felt they had been given enough information about side effects by the prescriber. Those initially prescribed medication by a psychiatrist were more likely to be on several types of drugs and reported more adverse effects than those whose prescriber was a General Practitioner (GP). Researchers and prescribers are encouraged to pay greater attention to interpersonal adverse effects.

How does media coverage effect the consumption of antidepressants? A study of the media coverage of antidepressants in Danish online newspapers 2010-2011

BACKGROUND

The news media has become a major source of health information for the public, and hence vital in the individuals' opinions and decisions about health topics. The first decrease in the usage of antidepressants in Denmark in over a decade happened alongside an intensive period of media coverage about antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the Danish media's coverage of antidepressants during 2010-2011 in order to explore what influence it could have had on the change in the use of antidepressants.

METHODS

Three media theoretical concepts, agenda-setting, priming and framing, were used to explain the media influence with regard to which subject the public should think about, which criteria the public should judge the subject by, and how the public should think about the subject. All articles about antidepressants in the main Danish Internet newspapers from 2010-2011 were analyzed via quantitative and qualitative content analyses. The quantitative analysis was used to determine agenda-setting (number of articles) and, by coding articles, how priming was used in the descriptions of antidepressants. In the qualitative analysis, all articles were analyzed and condensed to determine which frames were used.

RESULTS

Quantitative results: 271 articles were included. Agenda-setting was shown by a marked increase in the number of articles about antidepressants. Eight main codes were identified, with the negatively-associated side effects being the major one, thereby priming the public to use side effects as a criterion when judging antidepressants. Qualitative results: Two main frames were identified: 1) economic profits vs. medicine safety, and 2) the necessity of antidepressants. Both frames presented a critical view on antidepressants.

CONCLUSION

It is believed that the media's agenda-setting, priming and framing of antidepressants led the public to have a more skeptical view on antidepressants, which may have probably contributed to a decrease in the usage of antidepressants.

Do GPs and psychiatrists recommend alternatives when prescribing anti-depressants?

This study explores whether a partial explanation for high antidepressant prescription rates is the failure of prescribers to recommend alternatives. 1829 New Zealand adults were asked which of six non-pharmacological treatment approaches were recommended when prescribed anti-depressants. The majority (82%) received at least one recommendation and 32% received three or more, most commonly 'Counsellor/Psychologist/Psychotherapist' (74%) and Exercise Schedule (43%). It cannot, therefore, be concluded that failing to consider non-pharmacological treatments is a major cause of high prescribing rates. Being younger and more severely depressed were both positively related to number of recommendations. Psychiatrists made significantly more recommendations than GPs.

Psychiatrists' Attitudes Toward Non-Pharmacologic Factors Within the Context of Antidepressant Pharmacotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Recent meta-analyses of antidepressant clinical trials have suggested that up to 82 % of response can be attributed to non-medication-related factors. The present study examines psychiatrists' attitudes regarding non-pharmacologic factors within the context of antidepressant pharmacotherapy.

METHODS

A web-based, 20-question cross-sectional survey was distributed to 101 staff psychiatrists and 48 post-graduate trainees in psychiatry at an academic hospital in Boston, MA. Demographics, practice characteristics, beliefs about non-pharmacologic factors affecting prescribing practices, perceived response and remission rates, and opinions about the need for further investigations in the psychopharmacology process were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall completion rate was 53 %. The final sample included 79 responses. The medians for clinician-perceived response rates (54 %) and remission rates (33 %) were in agreement with published rates. The reported median of the what portion of clinical outcomes is believed to be due to placebo effects (26 %) was numerically lower than suggested by literature. The contribution of the active ingredients of medications was perceived to be significantly higher than the contribution of patient characteristics and clinician characteristics. A longer time since graduation from medical school was significantly associated with higher belief in the effect of the active ingredients of antidepressant medications and with less perceived importance of placebo effects.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest a discrepancy between empirical evidence and psychiatrists' beliefs on the impact of placebo effects on clinical outcomes. Educating antidepressant prescribers about the evidence based on psychosocial mediators of placebo effects' contribution to outcome may represent a promising strategy for improving clinical outcomes.

'In my life antidepressants have been…': a qualitative analysis of users' diverse experiences with antidepressants

BACKGROUND

While mental health professionals have focused on concerns about whether antidepressants work on a neurochemical level it is important to understand the meaning this medication holds in the lives of people who use it. This study explores diversity in the experience of antidepressant users.

METHODS

One thousand seven hundred forty-seven New Zealand antidepressant users responded to an open-ended question about their experience of antidepressants. This was analysed using content and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

There was considerable diversity in participants' responses including positive (54 %), negative (16 %) and mixed (28 %) experiences with antidepressants. Those with positive experiences saw antidepressants as a necessary treatment for a 'disease', a life saver, a way of meeting social obligations, dealing with difficult circumstances or a stepping stone to further help. Negative themes described antidepressants as being ineffective, having unbearable side effects, undermining emotional authenticity, masking real problems and reducing the experience of control. Mixed experience themes showed how participants weighed up the unpleasant side effects against the benefits, felt calmer but less like themselves, struggled to find the one or dosage and felt stuck with continuing on antidepressants when they wished to stop.

CONCLUSIONS

Mental health professions need to recognize that antidepressants are not a 'one size fits all' solution.

Conflict in Men's Experiences With Antidepressants

While men's experiences of depression and help seeking are known to be shaped by gender, there is little research which examines their experience of using antidepressants to treat this. This study is based on in-depth, narrative-style interviews with 20 New Zealand men who had used antidepressants. The analysis identified a number of areas of conflict in the men's accounts of using this medication. Conflict centered on the way taking antidepressants was seen as undermining personal control while also allowing users to take charge of their problems; facilitating general functioning while undermining sexual functioning; relieving emotional distress while undermining emotional vitality; and the tension participants felt between making autonomous judgments about the value of antidepressants and relying on the "expertise" of others. Participants negotiated these conflicts in a variety of ways. In some cases, antidepressants were positioned as being able to affirm aspects of traditional masculinity, while a smaller number of participants managed these conflicts by redefining aspects of their own masculinity in ways that contrasted with dominant constructions. This research is limited by the sample of older, more privileged men in the context of New Zealand culture which favors macho forms of masculinity. In similar contexts, mental health practitioners should be mindful of the conflicts that men might experience in relation to their antidepressant use. Facilitating men's exploration of these issues may enable them to make better decisions about treatment options or to provide more effective support to those who have opted for antidepressant treatment.