ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Mental Health
The Case Against Antidepressants
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FunkOdyssey" data-source="post: 232717" data-attributes="member: 44064"><p>This paper claims antidepressants are ineffective and increase risk of suicide and all-cause mortality:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5725408/#" target="_blank">Front Psychiatry.</a> 2017; 8: 275.</p><p>doi: <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyt.2017.00275" target="_blank">10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00275</a></p><h3>Methodological Flaws, Conflicts of Interest, and Scientific Fallacies: Implications for the Evaluation of Antidepressants’ Efficacy and Harm</h3><p><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Hengartner%20MP%5BAuthor%5D" target="_blank">Michael P. Hengartner</a>1,*</p><h3>Abstract</h3><h4><strong>Background</strong></h4><p>In current psychiatric practice, antidepressants are widely and with ever-increasing frequency prescribed to patients. However, several scientific biases obfuscate estimates of antidepressants’ efficacy and harm, and these are barely recognized in treatment guidelines. The aim of this mini-review is to critically evaluate the efficacy and harm of antidepressants for acute and maintenance treatment with respect to systematic biases related to industry funding and trial methodology.</p><h4><strong>Methods</strong></h4><p>Narrative review based on a comprehensive search of the literature.</p><h4><strong>Results</strong></h4><p>It is shown that the pooled efficacy of antidepressants is weak and below the threshold of a minimally clinically important change once publication and reporting biases are considered. Moreover, the small mean difference in symptom reductions relative to placebo is possibly attributable to observer effects in unblinded assessors and patient expectancies. With respect to trial dropout rates, a hard outcome not subjected to observer bias, no difference was observed between antidepressants and placebo. The discontinuation trials on the efficacy of antidepressants in maintenance therapy are systematically flawed, because in these studies, spontaneous remitters are excluded, whereas half of all patients who remitted on antidepressants are abruptly switched to placebo. This can cause a severe withdrawal syndrome that is easily misdiagnosed as a relapse when assessed on subjective symptom rating scales. In accordance, the findings of naturalistic long-term studies suggest that maintenance therapy has no clear benefit, and non-drug users do not show increased recurrence rates. Moreover, a growing body of evidence from hundreds of randomized controlled trials suggests that antidepressants cause suicidality, but this risk is underestimated because data from industry-funded trials are systematically flawed. Unselected, population-wide observational studies indicate that depressive patients who use antidepressants are at an increased risk of suicide and that they have a higher rate of all-cause mortality than matched controls.</p><h4><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4><p>The strong reliance on industry-funded research results in an uncritical approval of antidepressants. Due to several flaws such as publication and reporting bias, unblinding of outcome assessors, concealment and recoding of serious adverse events, the efficacy of antidepressants is systematically overestimated, and harm is systematically underestimated. Therefore, I conclude that antidepressants are largely ineffective and potentially harmful.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5725408/[/URL]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FunkOdyssey, post: 232717, member: 44064"] This paper claims antidepressants are ineffective and increase risk of suicide and all-cause mortality: [URL='https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5725408/#']Front Psychiatry.[/URL] 2017; 8: 275. doi: [URL='https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyt.2017.00275']10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00275[/URL] [HEADING=2]Methodological Flaws, Conflicts of Interest, and Scientific Fallacies: Implications for the Evaluation of Antidepressants’ Efficacy and Harm[/HEADING] [URL='https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Hengartner%20MP%5BAuthor%5D']Michael P. Hengartner[/URL]1,* [HEADING=2]Abstract[/HEADING] [HEADING=3][B]Background[/B][/HEADING] In current psychiatric practice, antidepressants are widely and with ever-increasing frequency prescribed to patients. However, several scientific biases obfuscate estimates of antidepressants’ efficacy and harm, and these are barely recognized in treatment guidelines. The aim of this mini-review is to critically evaluate the efficacy and harm of antidepressants for acute and maintenance treatment with respect to systematic biases related to industry funding and trial methodology. [HEADING=3][B]Methods[/B][/HEADING] Narrative review based on a comprehensive search of the literature. [HEADING=3][B]Results[/B][/HEADING] It is shown that the pooled efficacy of antidepressants is weak and below the threshold of a minimally clinically important change once publication and reporting biases are considered. Moreover, the small mean difference in symptom reductions relative to placebo is possibly attributable to observer effects in unblinded assessors and patient expectancies. With respect to trial dropout rates, a hard outcome not subjected to observer bias, no difference was observed between antidepressants and placebo. The discontinuation trials on the efficacy of antidepressants in maintenance therapy are systematically flawed, because in these studies, spontaneous remitters are excluded, whereas half of all patients who remitted on antidepressants are abruptly switched to placebo. This can cause a severe withdrawal syndrome that is easily misdiagnosed as a relapse when assessed on subjective symptom rating scales. In accordance, the findings of naturalistic long-term studies suggest that maintenance therapy has no clear benefit, and non-drug users do not show increased recurrence rates. Moreover, a growing body of evidence from hundreds of randomized controlled trials suggests that antidepressants cause suicidality, but this risk is underestimated because data from industry-funded trials are systematically flawed. Unselected, population-wide observational studies indicate that depressive patients who use antidepressants are at an increased risk of suicide and that they have a higher rate of all-cause mortality than matched controls. [HEADING=3][B]Conclusion[/B][/HEADING] The strong reliance on industry-funded research results in an uncritical approval of antidepressants. Due to several flaws such as publication and reporting bias, unblinding of outcome assessors, concealment and recoding of serious adverse events, the efficacy of antidepressants is systematically overestimated, and harm is systematically underestimated. Therefore, I conclude that antidepressants are largely ineffective and potentially harmful. [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5725408/[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Mental Health
The Case Against Antidepressants
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top