|
Post by Admin on Nov 22, 2020 16:59:54 GMT
US Government Reviews Antidepressants During and After Pregnancywww.madinamerica.com/2014/07/us-government-reviews-antidepressants-pregnancy/The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has released a meta-analysis “Evidence Report” of the studies into the benefits and harms of antidepressant treatments during and after pregnancy. Prepared by the Portland-based Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, the research team’s analysis included all studies published before July 2013. Overall, the team determined that not enough research has been done to provide clear guidance on benefits or harms, though they did identify several concerns about newborns. The team found “low-strength evidence” suggesting that SSRIs create a higher risk of respiratory distress in newborn infants. They found “insufficient” evidence to draw conclusions about possible increases in birth defects when pregnant mothers take antidepressants – though they suggested more research in this area seemed to be warranted. “Although the absolute increased risk of autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in the child associated with antidepressant use for depression in pregnancy may be very small, this issue also merits attention in future research,” they wrote. The team concluded that, “Evidence about the comparative benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women was largely inadequate to allow well-informed decisions about treatment.” Antidepressant Treatment of Depression During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, July 8, 2014)effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/depression-pregnancy-postpartum/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 27, 2020 21:20:23 GMT
Withdrawal symptoms from antidepressants can last over a year, new study finds We must rethink the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental health.DEREK BERES 05 June, 2020 bigthink.com/surprising-science/antidepressants-withdrawalA new review found that withdrawal symptoms from antidepressants and antipsychotics can last for over a year. Side effects from SSRIs, SNRIs, and antipsychotics last longer than benzodiazepines like Valium or Xanax. The global antidepressant market is expected to reach $28.6 billion this year. In her book, "Blue Dreams: The Science and Story of the Drugs That Changed Our Minds," psychotherapist Lauren Slater discusses psilocybin and MDMA as potential treatments for depression. Sadly, she hasn't tried either given her longstanding antidepressant usage. As she told me in 2018, psychedelics are contraindicated to Prozac. Yet she sees hope in this class of drugs for a wide range of mental health treatments. After I described the psychedelic experience, she replied, "I can imagine them very vividly, but it's not the same as actually getting to take them. I think if I could actually get to take a psychedelic, a lot of what I fear would go away. And I think I would be a better person because of it. But I do understand I have a sort of intuitive understanding of what they do." Slater has been taking antidepressants for decades. While aware of the problems with long-term usage, she is unable to withdraw given the crippling side effects. This is a serious problem for millions of antidepressant users, as detailed in a new review published in the journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. Written by University of Florence Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology, Fiammetta Cosci, and Maastricht University's Guy Chouinard, the review points out popular antidepressant and antipsychotic medications, including SSRIs and SNRIs, exhibit more severe withdrawal symptoms than benzodiazepines (such as Valium and Xanax), Z-drugs, and ketamine. Benzodiazepines were first synthesized in 1955. This class of tranquilizers took the place of Meprobamate (Miltown), which is considered one of the world's first blockbuster drugs. As Miltown lost favor due to a growing population of addicts, benzos took its place in psychiatry offices. By the late seventies, benzos were the world's most prescribed medications despite growing evidence of their addictiveness and side effects. By contrast, SSRIs and SNRIs are generally considered less damaging than benzos—an assessment that must now be reconsidered. With the global antidepressant market expected to reach $28.6 billion this year, pharmaceutical companies go to great lengths to downplay the long-term effects of these drugs. Slater writes that lithium showed clinical efficacy in treating depression but has never been approved by the FDA (except for manic-depressive disorder). The real issue: you can't patent an element. In the review, Cosci and Chouinard categorize withdrawal symptoms into three groups. University of West Georgia instructor of psychology, Ayurdhi Dhar, breaks them down: "New withdrawal symptoms and rebounds are short-lived, temporary, and reversible. However, new withdrawal symptoms are new for the patient (nausea, headaches etc), while rebound symptoms refer to the sudden return of primary symptoms that are often more severe than pre-treatment. Persistent post-withdrawal disorder refers to 'a set of long-lasting, severe, potentially irreversible symptoms which entitle rebound primary symptoms or primary disorder at a greater intensity and/or new withdrawal symptoms and/or new symptoms or disorders that were not present before treatment.'" Each class of drugs cited in the review produce some withdrawal symptoms. Benzos and Z-drugs can cause confusion, sweating, rebound anxiety, and psychosis, generally lasting between two to four weeks (though in some cases, impaired cognition can last longer). Ketamine, the first psychedelic approved for clinical use in America, can produce rage, tremors, palpitations, and hallucinations, though the effects are short-lived: three days to two weeks. The authors find that SSRIs, SNRIs, and antipsychotics have the worst record for withdrawal symptoms. Antidepressants can produce pain, numbness, depression, stroke-like symptoms, and much more. With SSRIs, impaired memory, sexual dysfunctions, panic attacks, and pathological gambling can continue for a year after discontinuation even if the patient tapers off slowly. In 2014, Professor Peter C. Gøtzsche of The Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen published an article highlighting the dangers of antidepressants (featured in Robert Whitaker's "Anatomy of an Epidemic"). Gøtzsche calls for psychiatrists to abandon the longstanding myth of the chemical imbalance theory of the brain. He believes popular pharmacological interventions are the true source of imbalances. "We have no idea about which interplay of psychosocial conditions, biochemical processes, receptors and neural pathways that lead to mental disorders, and the theories that patients with depression lack serotonin and that patients with schizophrenia have too much dopamine have long been refuted. It is very bad to give patients this message because the truth is just the opposite. There is no chemical imbalance to begin with, but when treating mental illness with drugs, we create a chemical imbalance, an artificial condition that the brain tries to counteract." As the #BLM protests are exposing more than ever, systemic issues around inequality and racism create the environmental conditions for mental health problems to manifest. Chemical imbalances are a symptom; writing a script does not treat the cause of depression or anxiety. While a certain percentage of depressed and anxious patients will benefit from short-term usage of prescription medication, mounting evidence against their long-term use, as detailed in this new review, must force the medical establishment to rethink its approach. The for-profit health care system has failed us too long. We can no longer afford to pay its toll.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 30, 2020 19:09:10 GMT
If antidepressant drugs worked to reduce suicide, we should see a decrease in suicide rates when antidepressants began to be widely adopted. This should be true around 1960 when the first-generation drugs emerged and even more pronounced around 1990 when the SSRIs exploded in popularity. To test this, researchers looked at suicide rates in three countries—Italy, Austria, and Switzerland—over time. They found that there was no association between these time periods and suicide rates. The drugs did not appreciably change suicide rates at all. “The introduction of antidepressants around 1960 and the sharp increase in prescriptions after 1990 with the introduction of the SSRIs did not coincide with trend changes in suicide rates in Italy, Austria or Switzerland,” the researchers write. Suicide Rates Did Not Decrease When Antidepressant Drugs Were IntroducedSuicide rates were already declining before antidepressants were widely prescribed, so “logic dictates that antidepressant prescription cannot be the cause of the declining suicide rates during that period.” www.madinamerica.com/2020/11/suicide-rates-not-decrease-antidepressantdrugs-introduced/Amendola, S., Plöderl, M., & Hengartner, M. P. (2020). Did the introduction and increased prescribing of antidepressants lead to changes in long-term trends of suicide rates? European Journal of Public Health, ckaa204. Published on 25 November 2020. doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa204 (Link) Did the introduction and increased prescribing of antidepressants lead to changes in long-term trends of suicide rates? Simone Amendola, Martin Plöderl, Michael P Hengartner European Journal of Public Health, ckaa204, doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa204Published: 25 November 2020 academic.oup.com/eurpub/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa204/6000721Abstract Background Ecological studies have explored associations between suicide rates and antidepressant prescriptions in the population, but most of them are limited as they analyzed short-term correlations that may be spurious. The aim of this long-term study was to examine whether trends in suicide rates changed in three European countries when the first antidepressants were introduced in 1960 and when prescription rates increased steeply after 1990 with the introduction of the serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Methods Data were extracted from the WHO Mortality Database. Suicide rates were calculated for people aged 10–89 years from 1951–2015 for Italy, 1955–2016 for Austria and 1951–2013 for Switzerland. Trends in suicide rates stratified by gender were analyzed using joinpoint regression models. Results There was a general pattern of long-term trends that was broadly consistent across all three countries. Suicide rates were stable or decreasing during the 1950s and 1960s, they rose during the 1970s, peaked in the early 1980s and thereafter they declined. There were a few notable exceptions to these general trends. In Italian men, suicide rates increased until 1997, then fell sharply until 2006 and increased again from 2006 to 2015. In women from all three countries, there was an extended period during the 2000s when suicide rates were stable. No trend changes occurred around 1960 or 1990. Conclusions The introduction of antidepressants around 1960 and the sharp increase in prescriptions after 1990 with the introduction of the SSRIs did not coincide with trend changes in suicide rates in Italy, Austria or Switzerland.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 4, 2020 17:19:33 GMT
Researchers Find Inadequate Reporting of the Dangers of Ketamine Treatment for Depressionwww.madinamerica.com/2017/08/researchers-find-inadequate-reporting-dangers-ketamine-treatment-depression/In the first systematic review of the safety of ketamine treatments for depression, researchers report that dangerous side effects are not being adequately reported in the trials of the experimental drug. According to the authors, the long-term safety of ketamine use for depression remains unknown. “Our findings suggest a selective reporting bias with a limited assessment of long-term use and safety and after repeated dosing, despite these being reported in other patient groups exposed to ketamine (eg, those with chronic pain) and in recreational users.” Side-effects associated with ketamine use in depression: a systematic reviewBrooke Short, MD Joanna Fong Veronica Galvez, MD William Shelker, MD Prof Colleen K Loo, MD Published:July 27, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30272-9 www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(17)30272-9/fulltextSummary This is the first systematic review of the safety of ketamine in the treatment of depression after single and repeated doses. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Databases and identified 288 articles, 60 of which met the inclusion criteria. After acute dosing, psychiatric, psychotomimetic, cardiovascular, neurological, and other side-effects were more frequently reported after ketamine treatment than after placebo in patients with depresssion. Our findings suggest a selective reporting bias with limited assessment of long-term use and safety and after repeated dosing, despite these being reported in other patient groups exposed to ketamine (eg, those with chronic pain) and in recreational users. We recommend large-scale clinical trials that include multiple doses of ketamine and long-term follow up to assess the safety of long-term regular use.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 5, 2020 16:50:31 GMT
Efficacy and Acceptability of Antidepressants in Acute Depression – What Does the Largest Ever Research Study on Antidepressants Tell Us?Posted on:March 23, 2018 Last Updated: September 21, 2020 Time to read: 10 minutes psychscenehub.com/psychinsights/efficacy-acceptability-antidepressants-network-meta-analysis/Antidepressants are widely used treatments for major depressive disorder. However, there is considerable debate on their effectiveness because their short-term benefits are modest and the long-term benefits and harms are under-researched. In 1998, Irving Kirsch published a meta-analysis of 19 placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trials [1]. In this publication, the mean change in depressive scores was compared between placebo and antidepressant. Here, it was shown that the placebo response was calculated to be responsible for 75% of the response to active antidepressant medication. [1] This article reached a controversial conclusion, and the methodology was criticised, whereby the analysis was subject to significant clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity. [2] However, in 2008, Kirsch repeated his work using a different set of clinical trials by requesting the FDA to divulge unpublished research from pharmaceutical companies [3]. In this data set, the placebo response was shown to be responsible for 82% of the response observed with antidepressant therapy. Drug–placebo differences in antidepressant efficacy increase as a function of baseline severity, but are relatively small even for severely depressed patients. The relationship between initial severity and antidepressant efficacy is attributable to decreased responsiveness to placebo among very severely depressed patients, rather than to increased responsiveness to medication (Kirsch et al 2008). Fournier and colleagues then supported the observation that antidepressants show a magnitude of benefit only for cases of severe depression (HDRS>25). [4] The magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medication compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms. For patients with very severe depression, the benefit of medications over placebo is substantial. The efficacy of antidepressants has therefore been debated for at least a decade. In February 2018, a systematic review and network meta-analysis was published by Cipriani and colleagues, which compared the efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants to treat major depressive disorder. [5] This network meta-analysis was more extensive and included a comprehensive list of 21 antidepressants and placebo which were compared by using the most advanced statistical methodology for network meta-analysis to date. NETWORK META ANALYSIS Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of Randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) lie at the top of the hierarchy of evidence-based medicine and are essential tools in highlighting the effectiveness of interventions. You can view a video about how to appraise a systematic review and meta-analysis. The purposes of a meta-analysis are: To resolve conflicting conclusions by examining quality, subjects and interventions To increase power for major endpoints and subgroup analyses. This is especially important for clinical trials as many randomised controlled trials have small sample sizes that do not allow for definitive conclusions to be reached on a positive or negative effect of the intervention. To sharpen boundaries of the effect size in the case of positive studies as a Meta-analysis arrives closer to the true effect size in the population as the sample size increases. (Increase precision) To answer new questions and develop new hypotheses Chalmers who was instrumental in the development of meta-analysis in 1988 highlighted the importance of meta-analyses that later led to the change in practice towards anticoagulation in patients with acute MI. [6] An example of a strongly positive effect in a meta-analysis is the use of intravenous streptokinase for patients with acute myocardial infarction. The saving of lives had been demonstrated in small studies for at least five years before it was confirmed by the very large study known as GISSI. It is also of interest that intravenous streptokinase is rarely used in the United States, in contrast to lidocaine. I guess the reason is that doctors do not like to see their patients bleed and they do like to see arrhythmias disappear as a result of something they did. They are unable to notice that in the former case they are saving the lives of one to two additional patients out of every 100 admitted for an acute myocardial infarction, and possibly losing one or two in the latter case. The individual practitioner cannot notice that kind of reduction or increase in death rate. So that is the usefulness of meta-analysis. (Chalmers, 1988) Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) and Multiple Treatment Comparisons (MTC) of RCT’s NMA’s and MTC’s have been introduced to facilitate indirect comparisons of multiple interventions that have not been studied in head to head studies. rest in link
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 9, 2020 11:04:11 GMT
THE PATIENT VOICE: ANTIDEPRESSANT WITHDRAWAL, MUS AND FNDPosted by BJGP Life | 3 Dec 2020 | Opinion | bjgplife.com/2020/12/03/the-patient-voice-antidepressant-withdrawal-mus-and-fnd/Marion Brown (left) is a retired psychotherapist and researcher/campaigner/Petitioner on behalf of the patient self-help peer group Recovery and renewal. Scottish petition: Prescribed drug dependence and withdrawal, see Twitter: @recover2renew and www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01651Stevie Lewis (right) is an expert patient and researcher/campaigner for recognition and for support services. Petitioner: Welsh Petition: Prescribed drug dependence and withdrawal, see business.senedd.wales/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=19952WE WRITE AS PETITIONERS respectively for Scottish and Welsh Public Parliamentary Petitions, launched 2017, to express our ongoing concerns about mis-diagnosis particularly of antidepressant dependence and withdrawal. It is now accepted that antidepressants, especially SSRIs and SNRIs, affect the central nervous system, may be dependence-forming and may cause side effects, adverse reactions and withdrawal (Public Health England 2019 Dependence and withdrawal associated with some prescribed medicines: an evidence review (publishing.service.gov.uk). In 2019 the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) released a position statement on antidepressants.1 In September 2020 they published a leaflet on ‘stopping antidepressants’, endorsed by the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), the Royal College of Pharmacists and NICE.2 Our recently published research paper “The ‘patient voice’: patients who experience antidepressant withdrawal symptoms are often dismissed, or misdiagnosed with relapse, or a new medical condition”, written together with Anne Guy and Mark Horowitz, collates patient evidence published for our petitions and was commissioned by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Prescribed Drug Dependence.3 This paper tracks 158 collated patient accounts of the aetiology of the development of all manner of prescribed drug-related ‘symptoms’ which have been variously mis-diagnosed as ‘relapse’, other illnesses, ‘unexplained symptoms’ and/or ‘functional’ disorders. The paper highlights eight ‘failure points’ where the system has led to exacerbation of the problems, for patients and prescribers.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 9, 2020 11:07:43 GMT
MEDIA RELEASE December 3, 2013
The December edition of the scientific journal Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica has published a review of studies examining the role of drug companies in the funding of mental health websites, including the first meta-analysis of studies comparing sites funded and not funded by drug companies. The review identified studies of websites for six problems: Depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Anorexia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Schizophrenia and Erectile Dysfunction. 152 (42%) of the 365 websites were drug company funded (including 22 actually owned by companies); with the most heavily industry-funded websites being for schizophrenia (58%).
The meta-analysis found that company funded sites are significantly biased toward biogenetic causal explanations (eg ‘chemical imbalance’ and ‘genetics’) (p < 0.01) and toward medication (p < 0.0001) compared to sites that are financially independent of the industry. For example, in 48% of the industry sponsored Erectile Dysfunction websites medication was the only treatment mentioned, compared to 10% of websites not funded by drug companies. Furthermore, industry funded websites for Schizophrenia were significantly more likely to perpetuate the stigmatising myths that patients become violent if they come off medication and that people with this diagnosis have little chance of recovery – by using terms such as devastating, disabling, severe, debilitating, chronic, degenerative, and long-term.
The authors, Professor John Read (University of Liverpool) and Amanda Cain (University of Auckland, New Zealand), concluded that “Drug company–funded websites cannot be considered an objective source of mental health information, for the public or practitioners” and that “The pervasive international influence of the pharmaceutical industry in all aspects of mental health policy, practice and research now clearly extends to the internet”. The paper adds: “Practitioners are encouraged to inform patients about the bias inherent in industry-sponsored websites and to recommend, instead, more balanced websites that present a range of evidence-based information about causes and treatments”. and….
“The pharmaceutical industry is using its enormous financial power to promote its products, and a somewhat simplistic ideology about causation that provides the rationale for those products, by funding the websites of other organizations, including cash-strapped NGOs. The internet is extraordinarily hard to regulate, but very easy to influence if you have the motive and money to do so.”
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 17, 2020 19:18:25 GMT
Listening to the Patient Voice: The Antidepressant Withdrawal Experience Patient advocates join with researchers and service users to present first-hand experiences of antidepressant withdrawal.www.madinamerica.com/2020/12/listening-patient-voice-antidepressant-withdrawal-experience/Although severe withdrawal symptoms have been documented for over 30 years, guidance for doctors has generally dismissed these claims and suggested that withdrawal symptoms are mild and limited to a week or two. However, after recent research documented severe, long-term withdrawal, the UK’s NICE and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have finally acknowledged that withdrawal symptoms can last for months—or even years. Antidepressant withdrawal has become a more accepted fact now: “There is general consensus that withdrawal affects at least a third or a half of patients stopping antidepressants,” and that “in about half of cases of withdrawal the symptoms experienced will be severe, with severity also found to be related to the duration of use.” Part of this acceptance is due to tireless work on the part of researchers and service users who have advocated for policy change in the past few years. A petition to the Scottish government in 2017 and the Welsh government in 2018 brought powerful stories of users’ experiences of withdrawal to the attention of the general public and policymakers. Now, the leaders behind both petitions have joined with an academic researcher on antidepressant withdrawal to present their findings of service users’ experiences of withdrawal. The ‘patient voice’: patients who experience antidepressant withdrawal symptoms are often dismissed, or misdiagnosed with relapse, or a new medical conditionAnne Guy , Marion Brown, Stevie Lewis and Mark Horowitz Abstract Background: Stopping antidepressants commonly causes withdrawal symptoms, which can be severe and long-lasting. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance has been recently updated to reflect this; however, for many years withdrawal (discontinuation) symptoms were characterised as ‘usually mild and self-limiting over a week’. Consequently, withdrawal symptoms might have been misdiagnosed as relapse of an underlying condition, or new onset of another medical illness, but this has never been studied. Method: This paper outlines the themes emerging from 158 respondents to an open invitation to describe the experience of prescribed psychotropic medication withdrawal for petitions sent to British parliaments. The accounts include polypharmacy (mostly antidepressants and benzodiazepines) but we focus on antidepressants because of the relative lack of awareness about their withdrawal effects compared with benzodiazepines. Mixed method analysis was used, including a ‘lean thinking’ approach to evaluate common failure points. Results: The themes identified include: a lack of information given to patients about the risk of antidepressant withdrawal; doctors failing to recognise the symptoms of withdrawal; doctors being poorly informed about the best method of tapering prescribed medications; patients being diagnosed with relapse of the underlying condition or medical illnesses other than withdrawal; patients seeking advice outside of mainstream healthcare, including from online forums; and significant effects on functioning for those experiencing withdrawal. Discussion: Several points for improvement emerge: the need for updating of guidelines to help prescribers recognise antidepressant withdrawal symptoms and to improve informed consent processes; greater availability of non-pharmacological options for managing distress; greater availability of best practice for tapering medications such as antidepressants; and the vital importance of patient feedback. Although the patients captured in this analysis might represent medication withdrawal experiences that are more severe than average, they highlight the current inadequacy of health care systems to recognise and manage prescribed drug withdrawal, and patient feedback in general. Keywords: antidepressant, benzodiazepines, discontinuation, informed consent, lean thinking, patient feedback, prescribed drug dependence, withdrawal
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2021 12:02:30 GMT
The media bias against antidepressants is harming patientspsyche.co/ideas/the-media-bias-against-antidepressants-is-harming-patientsImagine you’ve just returned home from an appointment with your family doctor. You told her how you’ve spent the past few months in a daze – barely sleeping, barely eating and unable to feel excited about anything in life. She suggested you might be clinically depressed and could benefit from antidepressants. This is exactly what you’d feared. You want the cloud to lift, but you don’t want to take antidepressants either. Your doctor explained there’s strong evidence suggesting that the drugs work, and that she’s witnessed first-hand how antidepressants can benefit patients. And yet you’re not convinced. On the bus to the appointment you saw a news article describing how antidepressants ‘Can Make Depressed People TWICE As Likely To Think About Killing Themselves’. Last week, your friend shared a different article that declared ‘You Can’t Fix Life With A Magic Pill: DR MAX PEMBERTON Says Anti-Depressant Drugs Are Not The Answer To Feeling Down’. Your doctor gave you some information leaflets, but before taking the drugs, you decide to research further and discover more articles that frighten you. Some even lead you to mistrust your own doctor, such as ‘Anti-Depressant Use Doubles In Past Decade As Doctors Dole Out Happy Pills’. And yet you also find a different side to what seems to be an active debate. ‘The Drugs Do Work: Antidepressants Are Effective, Study Shows’ says another article. Like many patients, you’re left confused. You worry that by trying antidepressants you’re choosing a side in a debate that even medical professionals haven’t resolved yet. In recent years, the number of people seeking treatment for depression has increased in many parts of the world. Thankfully, we now have a variety of effective antidepressants. While research findings can be complicated and nuanced, a recent meta-analysis, published in The Lancet and led by researchers at the University of Oxford, looked at the results from 522 studies over the past 37 years and found that although some antidepressant drugs were more effective than others, all were more effective than placebos when treating adults with a major depressive illness. Although the exact mechanism of action isn’t fully understood, many antidepressants appear to work by increasing levels of chemical neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, in the brain. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most commonly prescribed first-choice treatment option.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 31, 2021 0:35:10 GMT
The review on antidepressant withdrawal that Cochrane won’t publish Published on February 12, 2020 www.scientificfreedom.dk/2020/02/12/the-review-on-antidepressant-withdrawal-that-cochrane-wont-publish/Peter Gøtzsche and Anders Sørensen on trying to get a review of methods for safe antidepressant withdrawal published in Cochrane: “They sent us on a mission that was impossible to accomplish” to “protect the psychiatric guild.” About half of the patients on depression pills, or over 50 million people worldwide, will experience withdrawal symptoms when they try to come off them, and in half of these, the symptoms are severe. This dependency is a major reason why many people continue taking the pills for decades or even lifelong. A review of methods for safe withdrawal of depression pills would therefore be hugely important. We describe here what happened when we tried to get a protocol for a Cochrane review approved. The process took two years and we did not succeed. It seems to us that the Cochrane group sent us on a mission that was impossible to accomplish, raising their demands along the way to absurd levels with many irrelevant requirements in a face-saving operation aimed at protecting the psychiatric guild and its false beliefs. Read our article about the scandal here. www.madinamerica.com/2020/02/review-cochrane-wont-publish/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 31, 2021 22:32:02 GMT
More than six million people were prescribed antidepressants in the three months leading up to September, the highest figure on record, as experts warn of Covid pandemic’s effects on mental health. The Guardian: "Calls to mental health helplines and prescriptions for antidepressants have reached an all-time high, while access to potentially life-saving talking therapies has plunged during the coronavirus pandemic, a Guardian investigation has found. The fall in referrals to NHS psychological therapies services (IAPT) is thought to have been down to counselling services going online, which some doctors have deemed inappropriate for certain patients, while some patients were reluctant to seek face-to-face help or add extra pressure to health services. Concerns have been raised that vital early intervention treatment will not have been given, with experts saying the longer people wait for appropriate help the 'more severe and complex their difficulties and their lives can become'. Lucy Schonegevel, the deputy campaigns director at the mental health charity Rethink, said there was a 'big risk of antidepressants being prescribed with no support', adding that such medications should 'go hand in hand' with therapy. Her concerns were echoed by the mental health campaigner Natasha Devon, who said: 'People are going to their GPs with symptoms of mental illness and being sent away with a bag of medication, having been put on an 18-month waiting list.' Dr Esther Cohen-Tovée, who is chair of the British Psychological Society’s division of clinical psychology, said: 'I’m shocked and extremely concerned about the massive extent of the reduction in referrals for psychological help during a time of huge anxiety, stress and distress for the whole population. This is even more concerning when there has been a huge increase in the prescription of antidepressants.' She said psychological help 'can be a lifesaver' and 'the longer people wait, the more severe and complex their difficulties and their lives can become'. Cohen-Tovée said an increase in resources for psychological services was urgently needed and if they were not provided the 'impacts will be devastating'. She said they would add 'to the existing and profound direct and indirect impacts of the pandemic itself … hampering our efforts towards recovery for individuals, families and communities'. Dr Gary Howsam, the vice-chair of the Royal College of GPs, said its members had reported an increase in the number of patients presenting with mental health concerns, including anxiety and low moods, during the pandemic. 'While for some these symptoms may be mild, for others they could be risk factors for self-harm and suicidal behaviour and, as such, GPs take these concerns very seriously.' There were 235,000 fewer referrals to the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme in the six months to the end of August, according to the latest available data, a 28% drop. Appointments for the most acute cases also fell. Hospital attendances across 10 mental health, psychology and psychiatric categories fell by 9% in the seven months to the end of September while first appointments fell by 26%. The figures point to an unmet need at a time of heightened mental health strain caused by Covid including isolation, lockdown, illness, bereavement and concerns over financial security and job losses. In July, the Office for National Statistics said the number of adults in Britain with depression doubled during the coronavirus pandemic. There have also been indications of direct Covid impacts on mental health. A recent study found that one in five people who have had Covid-19 were diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety, depression or insomnia within three months of testing positive for the virus. A spokesperson for Priory, a private mental health provider, said it had seen a 70% increase in private referrals in October compared with October 2019." READ FULL ARTICLE HERE: www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/01/covid-antidepressant-use-at-all-time-high-as-access-to-counselling-in-england-plunges
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 15, 2021 13:52:52 GMT
Researchers have conducted the most extensive study to date on long-term withdrawal experiences after discontinuing antidepressants, a phenomenon known as Protracted Withdrawal Syndrome (PWS). They examined 69 cases of PWS reported on SurvivingAntidepressants.org, a website providing support and information for people discontinuing antidepressants. “As with other psychotropics, the potential for antidepressant PWS is embedded in pharmacodynamic adaptations and possibly irreversible neurophysiological alterations following prolonged drug exposure. These processes, including receptor downregulation and desensitization, are best understood as physical dependence,” the researchers write. Researchers Document Protracted Withdrawal from AntidepressantsProtracted Withdrawal Syndrome characterized by long-term adverse experiences after coming off of antidepressants. www.madinamerica.com/2021/02/researchers-document-protracted-withdrawal-antidepressants/Protracted withdrawal syndrome after stopping antidepressants: a descriptive quantitative analysis of consumer narratives from a large internet forumjournals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2045125320980573
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 15, 2021 16:47:57 GMT
Antidepressants Still Linked to Increased Suicide Risk Bias and financial conflicts in antidepressant trials “contribute to systematic underestimation of risk in the published literature.”www.madinamerica.com/2021/03/antidepressants-still-linked-increased-suicide-risk/A new meta-analysis of observational studies, including 1.45 million subjects, has found that antidepressants are still linked to increased suicidality. Although this was largely driven by findings from non-SSRI antidepressants like venlafaxine, bupropion, and mirtazapine, the researchers found that publication bias and studies with a financial conflict of interest (fCOI) also likely contribute to underestimation of the risk—and SSRI studies are especially prone to these biases. “Exposure to new-generation antidepressants is associated with higher suicide risk in adult routine-care patients with depression and other treatment indications. Publication bias and fCOI likely contribute to systematic underestimation of risk in the published literature,” they write. The study was conducted by Michael Hengartner, Simone Amendola, Jakob Kaminski, Simone Kindler, Tom Bschor, and Martin Plöderl and published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Review Suicide risk with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other new-generation antidepressants in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studiesorcid.org/0000-0002-2956-2969Michael P Hengartner1, orcid.org/0000-0002-1950-4351Simone Amendola2, orcid.org/0000-0001-8155-3683Jakob A Kaminski3, Simone Kindler4, Tom Bschor5, Martin Plöderl6 Correspondence to Michael P Hengartner, Department of Applied Psychology, Zurcher Hochschule fur Angewandte Wissenschaften, Zurich CH-8005, Switzerland; michaelpascal.hengartner@zhaw.ch jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/03/07/jech-2020-214611.longAbstract Background There is ongoing controversy whether antidepressant use alters suicide risk in adults with depression and other treatment indications. Methods Systematic review of observational studies, searching MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, PsycARTICLES and SCOPUS for case–control and cohort studies. We included studies on depression and various indications unspecified (including off-label use) reporting risk of suicide and/or suicide attempt for adult patients using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and other new-generation antidepressants relative to non-users. Effects were meta-analytically aggregated with random-effects models, reporting relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs. Publication bias was assessed via funnel-plot asymmetry and trim-and-fill method. Financial conflict of interest (fCOI) was defined present when lead authors’ professorship was industry-sponsored, they received industry-payments, or when the study was industry-sponsored. Results We included 27 studies, 19 on depression and 8 on various indications unspecified (n=1.45 million subjects). SSRI were not definitely related to suicide risk (suicide and suicide attempt combined) in depression (RR=1.03, 0.70–1.51) and all indications (RR=1.19, 0.88–1.60). Any new-generation antidepressant was associated with higher suicide risk in depression (RR=1.29, 1.06–1.57) and all indications (RR=1.45, 1.23–1.70). Studies with fCOI reported significantly lower risk estimates than studies without fCOI. Funnel-plots were asymmetrical and imputation of missing studies with trim-and-fill method produced considerably higher risk estimates. Conclusions Exposure to new-generation antidepressants is associated with higher suicide risk in adult routine-care patients with depression and other treatment indications. Publication bias and fCOI likely contribute to systematic underestimation of risk in the published literature. Registration Open Science Framework, osf.io/eaqwn/dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-214611
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 20, 2021 23:21:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 21, 2021 1:03:45 GMT
Medication Withdrawal | Adele Framer | Madness Radio www.madnessradio.net/medication-withdrawal-adele-framer-madness-radio/Survivingantidepressants.org is one of the leading and longest running communities of mutual and and peer self-help around psychiatric drug withdrawal. Adele Framer – alto strata – founded the site in 2011 and shares her experience and learning on supporting people coming off antidepressants, mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and other medications, including the emerging field of psychiatric medication withdrawal research. (Special thanks to Oddball Magazine for production assistance.) www.survivingantidepressants.org
|
|