The antidepressant debate

Drug treatment of depression: reflections on the evidence

Guidelines are readily available for the treatment of depression, and more recent ones are explicitly evidence-based. Their core messages vary little but they tend to minimise uncertainties and gloss over difficult areas. This article examines three areas of uncertainty: the thresholds of severity and, for milder depression, the duration of illness for which antidepressants are more effective than placebo; the next step in drug treatment when a patient has failed to respond adequately to a first antidepressant; and how long continuing on antidepressants should be recommended in relation to individual patients' needs. It is concluded that the uncertainties in relation to treating individual patients are a combination of lack of evidence and individual patient factors but there is also an intrinsic uncertainty that will continue to require good clinical judgement.

Placebo for depression: we need to improve the quality of scientific information but also reject too simplistic approaches or ideological nihilism

The placebo response plays a major role in psychiatry, particularly in depression. A new network meta-analysis investigates whether the effects of placebo vary in studies comparing fluoxetine and venlafaxine, two widely prescribed antidepressants. Even though data from this article indicate that the effects of placebos do not differ, publication bias cannot be ruled out. The authors use their finding to criticise the paradigm of evidence-based medicine, questioning whether there is anything certain in psychiatry and, more precisely, in the field of antidepressant treatment for major depression. This study stimulates the debate about validity of scientific knowledge in medicine and highlights the importance of considering things from a different perspective. However, the authors' view should be considered with caution. As clinicians, we make decisions every day, integrating individual clinical expertise and patients' preferences and values with the best, up-to-date research data. The quality of scientific information must be improved, but we still think that valid conclusions to help clinical practice can be drawn from a critical and cautious use of the best available, if flawed, evidence.

Improving study design for antidepressant effectiveness assessment

Antidepressants effectiveness in major depressive disorder (MDD) is still questioned because the extrapolation of randomized controlled trial (RCT) results to "real life" settings is problematic. The application of the RCT paradigm in a disorder of this type, where global care plays a central role, raises questions regarding the internal and external validity of this type of study. Outcome measurement, attrition rates, the ability of the double-blind design to control for expectations, placebo response, the representativeness of trial participants and publication bias are major methodological pitfalls. This review discusses these issues. It is illustrated using original data and proposes some alternatives for assessing antidepressant effectiveness via different approaches. Some are easy to implement, such as ecological measures, qualitative approaches, improvement of analytical strategy and improvement of blinding procedures. Some are sophisticated, involving temporary deception to deal with the confounding effect of expectations, and they raise ethical issues. Others resort to external validity, this being the case in observational studies. But all are necessary to explore antidepressant effectiveness.

Obsessive compulsive disorder networks: positron emission tomography and neuropsychology provide new insights

BACKGROUND

Deep brain stimulation has shed new light on the central role of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). We explored this structure from a functional perspective, synchronizing neuroimaging and cognitive measures.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This case-control cross-sectional study compared 15 OCD patients without comorbidities and not currently on serotonin reuptake inhibitors or cognitive behavioural therapy with 15 healthy controls (matched for age, sex and education level) on resting-state (18)FDG-PET scans and a neuropsychological battery assessing executive functions. We looked for correlations between metabolic modifications and impaired neuropsychological scores. Modifications in glucose metabolism were found in frontal regions (orbitofrontal cortex and dorsolateral cortices), the cingulate gyrus, insula and parietal gyrus. Neuropsychological differences between patients and controls, which were subtle, were correlated with the metabolism of the prefrontal, parietal, and temporal cortices.

CONCLUSION

As expected, we confirmed previous reports of a PFC dysfunction in OCD patients, and established a correlation with cognitive deficits. Other regions outside the prefrontal cortex, including the dorsoparietal cortex and the insula, also appeared to be implicated in the pathophysiology of OCD, providing fresh insights on the complexity of OCD syndromes.

What we talk about when we talk about depression: doctor-patient conversations and treatment decision outcomes

BACKGROUND

Efforts to address depression in primary care settings have focused on the introduction of care guidelines emphasising pharmacological treatment. To date, physician adherence remains low. Little is known of the types of information exchange or other negotiations in doctor-patient consultations about depression that influence physician decision making about treatment.

AIM

The study sought to understand conversational influences on physician decision making about treatment for depression.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of consultation data collected in other studies. Using a maximum variation sampling strategy, 30 transcripts of primary care consultations about distress or depression were selected from datasets collected in three countries. Transcripts were analysed to discover factors associated with prescription of medication.

METHOD

The study employed two qualitative analysis strategies: a micro-analysis approach, which examines how conversation partners shape the dialogue towards pragmatic goals; and a narrative analysis approach of the problem presentation.

RESULTS

Patients communicated their conceptual representations of distress at the outset of each consultation. Concepts of depression were communicated through the narrative form of the problem presentation. Three types of narratives were identified: those emphasising symptoms, those emphasising life situations, and mixed narratives. Physician decision making regarding medication treatment was strongly associated with the form of the patient's narrative. Physicians made few efforts to persuade patients to accept biomedical attributions or treatments.

CONCLUSION

Results of the study provide insight into why adherence to depression guidelines remains low. Data indicate that patient agendas drive the 'action' in consultations about depression. Physicians appear to be guided by common-sense decision-making algorithms emphasising patients' views and preferences.

Time course of improvement of different symptom clusters in patients with major depression and pain treated with duloxetine or placebo

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis assessed improvements in a broad range of psychopathological dimensions and in interference of pain with functioning as well as the time course of these improvements in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and pain treated with duloxetine versus placebo.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data were derived from an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adult outpatients with MDD and non-specific physical pain. Mean times between improvement in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference of pain with functioning, depression severity, and dimensions of the Symptom Checklist-90 Revised (SCL-90-R) subscales were evaluated by responder analysis.

RESULTS

For all SCL-90-R subscores, a higher percentage of duloxetine-treated patients reached responder status (50% improvement) as compared to placebo, of these anger/hostility and interpersonal sensitivity had the highest response rates. In the duloxetine-treated group, response for anger/hostility, phobic anxiety, psychoticism, and most items assessing interference of pain with functioning was reached earlier than response for pain severity. The times to response for Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and for pain severity were similar. In the placebo-treated group, times to response for depression, anxiety, and MADRS were longer than response for pain severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine, and to a lesser degree placebo, not only improved depressive symptomatology and pain severity but also a much broader range of psychopathological symptoms. Time courses of improvements were different for duloxetine and placebo, in that depression and interference of pain with functioning improved earlier than pain severity in duloxetine-treated patients but not in placebo-treated patients. These results suggest that time to response is a valuable means of characterizing treatment effects.

LIMITATIONS

Pain was only assessed as a symptom and no further clinical diagnosis for pain syndromes were performed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY ID: www.clinicaltrial.gov - NCT00191919.

Lost in translation: neuropsychiatric drug development

Recent studies have identified troubling method and practice lapses in neuropsychiatric drug developments. These problems have resulted in errors that are of sufficient magnitude to invalidate clinical trial data and interpretations. We identify two potential sources for these difficulties: investigators selectively choosing scientific practices for demonstrations of efficacy in human-testing phases of drug development and investigators failing to anticipate the needs of practitioners who must optimize treatment for the individual patient. When clinical investigators neglect to use clinical trials as opportunities to test hypotheses of disease mechanisms in humans, the neuropsychiatric knowledge base loses both credibility and scope. When clinical investigators do not anticipate the need to translate discoveries into applications, the practitioner cannot provide optimal care for the patient. We conclude from this evidence that clinical trials, and other aspects of neuropsychiatric drug development, must adopt more practices from basic science and show greater responsiveness to conditions of clinical practice. We feel that these changes are necessary to overcome current threats to the validity and utility of studies of neurological and psychiatric drugs.

Profitable failure: antidepressant drugs and the triumph of flawed experiments

Drawing on an analysis of Irving Kirsch and colleagues' controversial 2008 article in "PLoS [Public Library of Science] Magazine" on the efficacy of SSRI antidepressant drugs such as Prozac, I examine flaws within the methodologies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have made it difficult for regulators, clinicians and patients to determine the therapeutic value of this class of drug. I then argue, drawing analogies to work by Pierre Bourdieu and Michael Power, that it is the very limitations of RCTs -- their inadequacies in producing reliable evidence of clinical effects -- that help to strengthen assumptions of their superiority as methodological tools. Finally, I suggest that the case of RCTs helps to explore the question of why failure is often useful in consolidating the authority of those who have presided over that failure, and why systems widely recognized to be ineffective tend to assume greater authority at the very moment when people speak of their malfunction.

Improving acute psychiatric hospital services according to inpatient experiences. A user-led piece of research as a means to empowerment

This paper has been undertaken by people with experience with mental health issues and mental health care systems. The aim of the research was to explore psychiatric inpatients' strategies for coping with mental ill health and in what ways acute inpatient psychiatric hospital services are facilitative to the individual attempting recovery. Ten focus groups were facilitated and data were analysed through systematic content analysis. Findings revealed that the main areas of concern for inpatients were: information, communication, relationships, activities, self-help, patient involvement in care treatment plans, and the physical environment. The authors also make a case to improve the status of user-led research as a means to understand the needs of mental health service users.

The antidepressant debate and the balanced placebo trial design: an ethical analysis

There is ongoing debate about whether randomized, placebo-controlled trials under a double-blind have reliably established the pharmacological efficacy of antidepressants. Numerous meta-analyses of antidepressant efficacy trials, e.g., Kirsch et al. [Kirsch, I., Moore, T. J., Scoboria, A., & Nicholls, S. (2002). The emperor's new drugs: An analysis of antidepressant medication data submitted to the U.S. food and drug administration. Prevention and Treatment, 5, Article 23. (Retrieved July 19, 2007 from http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5)], have shown a modest drug-placebo difference but methodological problems with standard trial design preclude a definitive conclusion that this difference results from specific biological effects of antidepressants or the nonspecific factors that have not been adequately excluded. Standard trial design assumes the additivity thesis of pharmacological efficacy, being the assumption that the specific or "true" magnitude of the pharmacological effect is limited to the difference between the drug and placebo responses in a standard trial. If the drug effects are as small as these meta-analyses suggest, then their clinical effectiveness is questionable. If the drug effects are actually larger but masked by placebo effects, then the additivity thesis is not valid and we risk false negative results with standard trial design. Kirsch et al. propose an alternative, four arm balanced placebo trial design (BPTD) that can accurately test the additivity thesis. The BPTD uses antidepressants, active placebos and the intentional deception of research subjects. My focal question is whether the BPTD is ethically defensible. I will explore two objections that can be raised against it: 1) lying to BPTD research subjects violates their autonomy and exploits their illness and 2) the BPTD may not enable us to test the additivity thesis with accuracy, i.e., it may contribute to the masking of drug effects that it aims to avoid. I argue that these objections support the conclusion that the BPTD is ethically indefensible.

How scientifically valid is the knowledge base of global mental health?

Mental health is a construct that cannot be seen as independent of culture, society and situation. Derek Summerfield argues that Western definitions and solutions cannot be routinely applied to people in developing countries

Effectiveness of paroxetine in the treatment of acute major depression in adults: a systematic re-examination of published and unpublished data from randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Concern has been raised about the efficacy of antidepressant therapy for major depression in adults. We undertook a systematic review of published and unpublished clinical trial data to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of paroxetine.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Trial Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to December 2006. Published and unpublished randomized trials comparing paroxetine with placebo in adults with major depression were eligible for inclusion. We selected the proportion of patients who left a study early for any reason as the primary outcome measure because it represents a hard measure of treatment effectiveness and acceptability.

RESULTS

We included in our review 29 published and 11 unpublished clinical trials, with a total of 3704 patients who received paroxetine and 2687 who received with placebo. There was no difference between paroxetine and placebo in terms of the proportion of patients who left the study early for any reason (random effect relative risk [RR] 0.99, 99% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.11). Paroxetine was more effective than placebo, with fewer patients who did not experience improvement in symptoms of at least 50% (random effect RR 0.83, 99% CI 0.77-0.90). Significantly more patients in the paroxetine group than in the placebo group left their respective studies because of side effects (random effect RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.44-2.18) or experienced suicidal tendencies (odds ratio 2.55, 95% CI 1.17-5.54).

INTERPRETATION

Among adults with moderate to severe major depression in the clinical trials we reviewed, paroxetine was not superior to placebo in terms of overall treatment effectiveness and acceptability. These results were not biased by selective inclusion of published studies.

Hypnosis, placebos, and systematic research bias in biological psychiatry

In an elaboration on the contribution by Raz (current issue), placebo response is further reviewed in relation to psychotropic drug research. Many therapists are unaware that placebo controlled research documents that antidepressant and anxiolytic drugs on average are only mildly more effective than a placebo. Systematic biases in research design are noted that could account for the small differences. These factors, and turf and financial motivations associated with the rise of "biological psychiatry," are discussed because they impact the practice of clinical hypnosis and psychotherapy. Although placebo research is fascinating and expectancy is certainly an important factor in hypnotic response, thus far, there is little research to support the strong involvement of placebo response as part of hypnotic responsiveness.

Pharmacotherapy of Mood Disorders and Treatment Discontinuation

Depression is the most frequent and costly problem in primary care, where most of these patients are seen and treated. In many countries, the public regard antidepressant drugs as 'addictive', partly because of the withdrawal symptoms that can occur when they are discontinued. Indeed, discontinuation (withdrawal) symptoms can follow the stoppage of almost all classes of antidepressants, including selective serotonin receptor inhibitors (SSRIs). This is important because they are widely regarded as drugs of choice for both depression and the anxiety disorders. But is this true withdrawal or merely rebound? The antidepressant discontinuation syndrome is characterised by the time-locked emergence of new, clearly defined and quantifiable signs and symptoms that ensue on stopping or reducing the dose of an antidepressant. Thereby, it meets the criteria for a withdrawal syndrome. The symptoms are not usually severe or protracted. SSRIs vary in their propensity to be associated with a discontinuation syndrome: paroxetine appears to be the most likely. Patients should be warned of the possibility of developing such a reaction, but reassured that it is usually mild and self limiting. Tapering the dose, if practicable, is worthwhile. In severe cases, temporary reinstatement of the SSRI and slower tapering may be necessary. Escalation of antidepressant dosage, or 'street abuse', is rare with antidepressants. The use of antidepressants is generally beneficial, and efforts should be made to optimise our current use of these drugs as well as encouraging the development of newer, better and innovative compounds. To this end, physicians should educate themselves and the public about discontinuation and withdrawal, so that these clinical features can be put in a realistic context.

Perspectives on the efficacy of antidepressants for child and adolescent depression

Raz looks at the ongoing controversies surrounding the use of SSRI antidepressants in children.

The multiple outcomes bias in antidepressants research

Despite the widespread use of antidepressant medication, there are no signs that the burden of depression and suicide is decreasing in the industrialised world. This is generating mounting scepticism on the effectiveness of this class of drugs as an approach for the treatment of mood disorders. These doubts are also fuelled by the increasing awareness that the literature on antidepressants is fundamentally flawed and under the control of the pharmaceutical companies. This article describes systematically for the first time what is probably the most insidious and misleading of the biases that affect this area of research: the "multiple outcomes bias". Most trials on the effectiveness of antidepressants, instead of first establishing a hypothesis and then trying to demonstrate it, following the scientific method, start instead "data mining", without a clear hypothesis, and then select for publication, amongst a multitude of outcomes, only the ones that favour the antidepressant drug, ignoring the others. This method has obviously no scientific validity and is very misleading, allowing the manipulation of the data without any overt fraudulent action. There is the need to generate new research, independently funded and with clear hypotheses established "a priori ". What is at stake is not only the appraisal of the balance between benefits and potential damage to the patients when using this class of medications, after the realisation that they are not as harmless as believed. It is also to establish whether the research on antidepressant medication has gone on a "wild goose chase" over the last half century, concentrating almost exclusively on molecules that modify the monoaminergic transmission at synaptic level and virtually ignoring any other avenue.

Information versus experience: a comparison of an information leaflet on antidepressants with lay experience of treatment

The quality of patient information leaflets has been criticised for being too medico centred. Written information produced by a patient organisation should be tailored to members' expressed needs, and based on their experience and therefore useful in helping patients to self-manage their condition. Views expressed in semi-structured interviews with 30 members of a self help group for depression were compared with the content of an antidepressant leaflet produced by the parent organisation. The information leaflet used six frequently asked questions to deliver a biomedical discourse on antidepressants. Members of the group had questions not included in the leaflet around self help, stigma and sense of self, and more complex answers to the six questions. It cannot be assumed that information leaflets written by lay led organisations are patient centred and promote self help. To assist in facilitating concordance between patient and prescriber medicine information leaflets should draw on patient experience of the condition and treatment for it.

Antidepressants and public health in Iceland. Time series analysis of national data

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder is the second leading cause of disability-adjusted life-years in developed regions of the world and antidepressants are the third-ranking therapy class worldwide.

AIMS

To test the public health impact of the escalating sales of antidepressants.

METHOD

Nationwide data from Iceland are used as an example to study the effect of sales of antidepressants on suicide, disability, hospital admissions and out-patient visits.

RESULTS

Sales of antidepressants increased from 8.4 daily defined doses per 1000 inhabitants per day in 1975 to 72.7 in 2000, which is a user prevalence of 8.7% for the adult population. Suicide rates fluctuated during 1950-2000 but did not show any definite trend. Rates for out-patient visits increased slightly over the period 1989-2000 and admission rates increased even more. The prevalence of disability due to depressive and anxiety disorders has not decreased over the past 25 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The dramatic increase in the sales of antidepressants has not had any marked impact on the selected public health measures. Obviously, better treatment for depressive disorders is still needed in order to reduce the burden caused by them.

Methodology for the scientific evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine

It has been suggested that CAM research should establish efficacy before examining mechanism. This paper shows that the efficacy-mechanism distinction is a false one, as any test of efficacy assumes a particular mechanism and is a test of the theory underlying that mechanism. The term RCT is currently used in medicine for two different sorts of study. The randomised controlled trial (RConT) requires an experimental manipulation that can 'control' for the mechanism under consideration, and therefore tests the efficacy of that mechanism. The randomised comparison trial (RComT) requires only an experimental manipulation creating a therapeutically relevant comparison, and tests the effectiveness of that therapy. The ability to achieve control coupled with an assumed implausibility of hidden moderating variables characterises drug therapy and some CAM therapies where the RConT can be used. However, other CAM researchers assume a variety of holistic mechanisms, where control is necessarily poor and the hypothesis of complex interactions suggest the existence of multiple moderators. In these cases other experimental (e.g. RComT), quasi-experimental or non-experimental designs are needed to evaluate therapeutic practice. Researchers from both communities should make explicit their underlying assumptions and the mechanisms they seek to evaluate when carrying out empirical studies. Research design needs to be appropriate for the mechanism under test.

Clinical trials of antidepressant medications are producing meaningless results

A recent alert from the UK Committee on Safety of Medicines stated that the dangers of treatment of depression with paroxetine outweigh the benefits in those under 18. Such a warning should focus our minds on the evidence on which clinical practice is based. Antidepressant treatment of depression in the under-18s has been thought to be justified because clinical trials show that it works so well in over-18s. But is that a reasonable assessment of the evidence? Kirsch et al (2002) use the analogy of ‘The Emperor's New Clothes' to describe the findings from their meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants. They conclude that antidepressant medication appears to have only a small effect on outcome over and above placebo. In this analogy psychiatry is the emperor, drug trials are the fraudsters and the deception is being revealed by a growing body of critical opinion proposing that, once methodological problems with clinical trials are taken into account, antidepressants either do not work at all or have an effect that is so small as to be clinically unimportant (Andrews, 2001; Moncrieff, 2002). A large number of randomised placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants have been carried out over the past decades, mostly funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and it is now recognised that about 50% of negative trials go unpublished (Thase, 1999). Meanwhile, unipolar depression has jumped into the top five of the world's total burden of disease, and there is an imperative need for effective and safe treatments. Do we need more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressant medications, or has that research paradigm outlived its usefulness? In this month's debate, Professor Gordon Parker, University of New South Wales and Black Dog Institute, Australia, and Drs Ian Anderson and Peter Haddad from the University of Manchester discuss whether clinical trials for antidepressant medication produce meaningless results.

Dual action antidepressants and some important considerations

OBJECTIVE

To review controlled studies of long-term treatment and their side-effects with newer dual action antidepressants following an acute episode of major depression.

METHOD

A literature review (MedLine) was undertaken and references were selected for their relevance and methodology in describing their contribution to the examination of our objective.

RESULT AND CONCLUSION

Three dual action antidepressants are identified: venlafaxine, mirtazapine and milnacipran. These are more effective and better tolerated than the older tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of an acute episode of depression and in the prevention of relapse. They also offer advantages in that they lack autonomic side-effects of the tricyclics. However, sedation, nausea and sexual side-effects may occur with venlafaxine, and weight gain with mirtazapine.