Antipsychotics: "The magnitude of publication bias found for antipsychotics was less than that found previously for antidepressants, possibly because antipsychotics demonstrate superiority to placebo more consistently."
: "We found a bias toward the publication of positive results. Not only were positive results more likely to be published, but studies that were not positive, in our opinion, were often published in a way that conveyed a positive outcome. [...] Using both approaches, we found that the efficacy of this drug class is less than would be gleaned from an examination of the published literature alone. According to the published literature, the results of nearly all of the trials of antidepressants were positive. In contrast, FDA analysis of the trial data showed that roughly half of the trials had positive results."
Previously [more inside]
posted by OmieWise
on Apr 3, 2012 -
: It is common practice for psychiatrists to switch depressive patients between different antidepressants if their current drug does not evince a symptomatic response. Despite clinical wisdom supporting this, little empirical, controlled evidence exists to direct “switching” protocols (e.g. if a patient with Z characteristics is on drug X, is it usually better to switch to drug A, B, or C? Will switching help at all?) in the psychopharmacological treatment of depression. The NIMH-funded STAR*D (Sequenced Alternatives to Relieve Depression) study
aimed to address these questions of treatment direction in a very large (n>4000), “real-world” sample using a multi-phase treatment plan
with different drugs (and cognitive therapy) at every step to maximize chances of eventual remission. Overall, the NIMH reported that about 67% of patients eventually achieved remission
, with few differences in effectiveness between different types of treatment at each step
. However, researchers and commentators have raised concerns
regarding inconsistent reporting of outcomes, after-the-fact changes in study design and analysis
, and other issues that may have inflated, partially invalidated, or misrepresented widely reported treatment outcomes. These inequities may also have implications for the secondary moderator analyses (i.e. does trait A predict switching to X or Y is better?) that were a major reason for the study. [more inside]
posted by Keter
on Jan 14, 2012 -
Anti-depressants increase suicide risk in young adults, FDA warns.
"When results are analyzed by age, it becomes clear that there is an elevated risk for suicidality and suicidal behavior among adults younger than 25 years of age that approaches that seen in the pediatric population." More here
This follows the FDA finding that anti-depressants increased the risk of suicide in young children. The FDA now requires manufacturers of anti-depressants to include warnings, and plans to meet on Dec 13 to discuss the findings further.
posted by shivohum
on Dec 12, 2006 -
- you need more brain cells
. Just take one of these
twice a day. New research
shows that antidepressants may not work as we thought
at all, rather they actually stimulate growth of cells in the hippocampus area of the brain. This may all be for the good - but it seems strange that we release millions of happy pills and market them as safe without knowing for sure what they do. Perhaps its the money
posted by grahamwell
on Aug 9, 2003 -
Hmm. Why am I not surprised?
Muddling with your serotonin in such a drastic way has always struck me as an overreaction to depression. Let's be honest. In a world jam-packed with aggressive apes who deny that they are
apes, a little depression is a healthy response. Taking a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor just because you feel blue is like taking 10000 micrograms of Acid because you like the Harry Potter books.
posted by Ezrael
on Jun 6, 2000 -
Speaking of Prozac...
Did Prozac and Ritalin cause the Columbine disaster? Are these drugs causing kids to kill? The people of "A White Rose" seem to think so. You be the judge.
posted by SuperGoat
on Mar 22, 2000 -