Can SSRI's cause permanent sexual side effects?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

muhali3

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,785
Reaction score
127
Are permanent sexual side effects from SSRI's a real phenomenon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome#Post-SSRI_sexual_dysfunction

What is your experience/opinion on this?

The possibility of that in itself is enough to deter one from using them, despite all the benefits.

Please chime in.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Not sure of SSRIs, but I know there have been some reports of Finasteride causing irreversible sexual dysfunction.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Are permanent sexual side effects from SSRI's a real phenomenon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome#Post-SSRI_sexual_dysfunction

What is your experience/opinion on this?

The possibility of that in itself is enough to deter one from using them, despite all the benefits.

Please chime in.

no....

although in many/most(?) cases, the potential benefits of an ssri(very limited) are not enough for the very real side effects of sexual dysfunction while on it.
 
Are permanent sexual side effects from SSRI's a real phenomenon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome#Post-SSRI_sexual_dysfunction

What is your experience/opinion on this?

The possibility of that in itself is enough to deter one from using them, despite all the benefits.

Please chime in.
The peer reviewed literature includes compelling case reports of individuals who developed sexual dysfunction while taking SSRIs, recovered from the condition being treated, discontinued the SSRI, but whose sexual health did not return to baseline. See Csoka and Shipko 2006; Csoka, Bahrick, and Mehtonen, 2008; Kauffman and Murdoch, 2007; Bolton, Sareen and Reiss 2006.
 
The peer reviewed literature includes compelling case reports of individuals who developed sexual dysfunction while taking SSRIs, recovered from the condition being treated, discontinued the SSRI, but whose sexual health did not return to baseline. See Csoka and Shipko 2006; Csoka, Bahrick, and Mehtonen, 2008; Kauffman and Murdoch, 2007; Bolton, Sareen and Reiss 2006.
It's always impressive and appreciated when folks cite sources, but here's a few reasons this doesn't really sway my clinical judgment any:

- None of these is a peer-reviewed psychiatric journal or even a psychological journal of any real reputation that I know of
- None of these are studies. Each article describes one or a few cases, which isn't much to really change practice
- Even one of the articles you reference states, in the abstract: To date, there have been no published reports of SSRI-induced sexual side-effects persisting beyond SSRI discontinuation.

I've never come across a patient with permanent sexual side effects post-SSRI usage. I've never heard it mentioned from any clinicians I've worked with. If I had a patient with sexual dysfunction and a remote history of SSRI use, I have a hunch that if you bother working with the patient, you'll find there are other factors at play.

This is one of the most widely prescribed drug classes in the country. If permanent sexual side effects post-SSRI use was an actual thing, it likely would have become a thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It's always impressive and appreciated when folks cite sources, but here's a few reasons this doesn't really sway my clinical judgment any:

- None of these is a peer-reviewed psychiatric journal or even a psychological journal of any real reputation that I know of
- None of these are studies. Each article describes one or a few cases, which isn't much to really change practice
- Even one of the articles you reference states, in the abstract: To date, there have been no published reports of SSRI-induced sexual side-effects persisting beyond SSRI discontinuation.

I've never come across a patient with permanent sexual side effects post-SSRI usage. I've never heard it mentioned from any clinicians I've worked with. If I had a patient with sexual dysfunction and a remote history of SSRI use, I have a hunch that if you bother working with the patient, you'll find there are other factors at play.

This is one of the most widely prescribed drug classes in the country. If permanent sexual side effects post-SSRI use was an actual thing, it likely would have become a thing.


It seems that you are comfortable in your opinions, believing that the risks of SSRIs are fully known because they have been widely prescribed for over twenty years. Yet, it is estimated that about one percent of post market adverse reactions are actually reported. In fact, the Prozac product label now includes a statement that "Symptoms of sexual dysfunction occasionally persist after discontinuation of fluoxetine treatment" (section 6.2). Eli Lilly acknowledges having 94 reports of persistent post treatment sexual dysfunction.

Tardive dyskenesia (TD) took over thirty years to link to the neuroleptics. It was thought for decades that these generally permanent movement disorders were a new manifestation of psychosis. Now it is known that the risk of TD is five percent per year of use. Note that TD begins on the drug but continues after stopping. It is difficult to "see" what is not believed.

Re: the case reports, you quote from the abstract of Bolton Sareen and Reiss, where they state there have been no prior published reports. Yes, this was the first, in 2006 (18 years after introduction of SSRIs to the market) , thus the authors did not find others in the literature. Re: the supposed low status of the journals publishing case reports of persistent sexual dysfunction:
One is published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, edited by Irwin Goldstein, MD, a founder of the field of sexual medicine. http://theinstituteforsexualmedicine.com/board/irwin-goldstein-md
Another is in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, edited by G.A. Fava, MD, psychiatrist. I urge you immerse in these outstanding peer reviewed journals.
 
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics is actually one of the leading psychiatry journals and tis true, we have a bad track record at acknowledging the problems of our treatments (e.g. dependence and withdrawal syndromes with barbiturates and benzos, withdrawal symptoms with antidepressants, TD with neuroleptic, permanent autobiographical memory loss with ECT). I think it is safe to say that persisten sexual dysfunctioning following SSRIs isn't common but to say it doesn't happen is a bias in itself that may contribute to the dearth of reports on this topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I think it is safe to say that persisten sexual dysfunctioning following SSRIs isn't common but to say it doesn't happen is a bias in itself that may contribute to the dearth of reports on this topic.
This thread has been interesting and I'll certainly be curious to see some actual studies about this issue. Case reports by definition are anecdotal and changing practices based on just on anecdotes is bad juju. It definitely gives me a "hmmm" anyway.

I will definitely take a look at Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics if I ever come across it. I don't read many of the European journals as a matter of habit. Nothing against them, just only so many hours in a day...
 
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics is actually one of the leading psychiatry journals

Absolutely. It had an impact factor of over 7 last year placing it in the top 10 if I'm not wrong.
 
I haven't written about this much before until recently but looking back at my career, it's become the norm to have a case that defies the studies. Yes it's rare, but to think it'll never happen is ignorance. I just talked to a patient today who I know for a fact has bipolar disorder, and she and her husband have noticed that before she becomes manic, her appetite plummets for at least a week. This has been consistent during their relationship of several years, and they've gone through about 5 manic episodes together, with me witnessesing two of them with my own eyes. You don't see stuff like that in studies.

I can say this. Let's assume there are permanent side effects from SSRIs. I haven't seen it yet but I believe it is likely a possibility though extremely rare. It still woult be within the standard and reasonable to still prescribe them and to point out the benefits and risks in a manner pretty much the same with what was going on before.
 
The only way to answer this question conclusively would be to do a randomized controlled trial of SSRIs vs. no SSRIs, which would be unethical. Even a cohort study would be useless, since people taking SSRIs are so different from people not taking SSRIs that you couldn't possibly control for the relevant variables.

If you're just reporting rare cases of sexual dysfunction in people taking SSRIs, I think that the most likely explanation is that it's a coincidence. Tens of millions of people take SSRIs, and tens of millions of people have long-term sexual dysfunction. It's no surprise that some people develop both things at about the same time. Actually, it'd probably happen more often than what you'd expect by just pure chance, since you'd naturally have a selection bias if you only look at people taking SSRIs (they probably have major depression, meaning that they're more likely to have other illnesses and/or a crappy life, which can contribute to sexual dysfunction). It could also be a comorbidity... like if somebody actually had an underlying illness that can cause both depression and sexual dysfunction, such as one of many different endocrine disorders. Considering that there is only a handful of case reports of this permanent sexual dysfunction in the medical literature, I'd expect that some of those patients actually had an undiagnosed (and/or difficult-to-diagnose) underlying illness. Especially considering that lack of dopamine causes both depression (through one of many pathways, my favorite of which is the reward pathway) AND sexual dysfunction (via hyperprolactinemia and the tuberoinfundibular pathway), so if somebody developed a problem that leads to poor dopaminergic activity, it seems natural that they'd develop both depression and permanent sexual dysfunction.

And like other people have said, this won't stop me from recommending SSRIs for patients with MDD. Just like the risk of rhabdomyolysis wouldn't stop me from prescribing a statin for a patient with hyperlipidemia, and the risk of lactic acidosis wouldn't stop me from prescribing metformin for a patient with diabetes or antipsychotic-induced weight gain (unless they have a comorbidity that makes the adverse effect more likely). Like everything in medicine, it's about a risk-benefit ratio.
 
I would offer an alternative idea, equally unsubstantiated by actual data. A total shot-in-the-dark hypothesis, for fun.

Let's look at a separate problem, such as migraines. We all know there's physiology involved, but there's an alternative view of them, presented especially by Lester Luborsky, that symptoms serve a purpose for patients [in a certain context]. Migraines force a person to take space from whatever has been stressing them, and to take care of themselves.

So What IF - [follow me here], the permanent sexual side effects that appear to be attributed to SSRI's appear that way because the SSRI's really did cause it at first, but then the sx's began serving another purpose in life (secondary gain) such as gaining sympathy, keeping distance in a relationship, etc., which perpetuates the sx's after the meds that began them are long gone.

I acknowledge it's a much more psychodynamic explanation, and borders on the "blame the victim" approach which we can all agree should be avoided.

I just find it useful to make sure we're seeing the bigger picture.
 
A foundation of medical science is what happens in studies to subjects? We can only base that data when a medication is new on what happened to at best a hundred people to a few hundred people.

When a new med is released to the public, it then gets taken several more, possibly on the order of millions. You start seeing things, benefits and side effects not seen in the original group of say about 100 to a few hundred people.

With a med being given to millions, it actually becomes realistic to start hearing of cases in the literature, of for example, an antibiotic induced hallucination, a case of psychosis controlled by gabapentin, etc. These things are on the order of not expected to realistically happen when giving the med to one person, but when you start giving a med to a million + people, you start getting things that are one in a million possibilities.

Under such a context, it becomes idiotic to make statements that such things CANNOT HAPPEN, when one simply uses the viewpoint that we were all trained in as physicians in basic statistics. It starts becoming normal to see at least one one-in-a-million type case when a million cases are presented.

If you have a med that has a 1% chance of causing a specific side effect and you give it to a few hundred patients, expect a handful of patients to experience the side effect? Simple huh? Then why can't some doctors accept that some rare-odd weird cases happen with millions of people accepting our treatments?

So to answer the original question, I do believe SSRI sexual side effects could be permanent though I wouldn't realistically expect it to happen, nor think it would be reasonable to warn a patient of an occurrence that is on the order of getting hit by lightening, other than to say that any medication, even if properly administered could cause something lethal though it is on the order of unrealistic, while the risk of benefits are on the order of realistically occurring and therefore is medically recommended if one has a disorder this SSRI can realistically treat.
 
They aren't severely depressed but they could be mildly depressed. When you're mildly depressed you can go on with life and of course want to enjoy the big score when you happen to be in that situation you dream of with the hot girl making a move on you.

This is the type of thing that happens when you shift from thinking inpatient vs outpatient psychiatry. You care more about the mild cases but as an inpatient doctor you think automatically "DISCHARGE!!!" without giving it much more thought.

Each treatment setting requires shifting of gears when treating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hard to remember exactly, but I think I was 15 when I went on Paxil. It's the weirdest thing, but I remember having a random thought, "I wonder if this will stop me from going through puberty." I think it did something weird. I've been on and off of Paxil since then (mostly on), and I have had the weirdest sexuality I have never been able to figure out. I was sure I was gay because I wasn't attracted to females, but I wasn't attracted to males either. I thought I was gay because there were guys I liked. But no arousal. The guys I liked were not ones I wanted to be with; they were ones I wanted to be like. I've never had any sexual drive except those few years before I went on Paxil. Never even had a sex dream--and I dream a lot.
 
I would offer an alternative idea, equally unsubstantiated by actual data. A total shot-in-the-dark hypothesis, for fun.

Let's look at a separate problem, such as migraines. We all know there's physiology involved, but there's an alternative view of them, presented especially by Lester Luborsky, that symptoms serve a purpose for patients [in a certain context]. Migraines force a person to take space from whatever has been stressing them, and to take care of themselves.

So What IF - [follow me here], the permanent sexual side effects that appear to be attributed to SSRI's appear that way because the SSRI's really did cause it at first, but then the sx's began serving another purpose in life (secondary gain) such as gaining sympathy, keeping distance in a relationship, etc., which perpetuates the sx's after the meds that began them are long gone.

I acknowledge it's a much more psychodynamic explanation, and borders on the "blame the victim" approach which we can all agree should be avoided.

I just find it useful to make sure we're seeing the bigger picture.

I don't think that's a shot-in-the-dark hypothesis at all. You're basically describing conditioning, which can happen (often unknowingly/"involuntarily") in the course of a developing mental health condition, and which can then goes on to perpetuate that condition.

Obviously can't say if that's the only cause, but it certainly seems plausible that it's at play in some cases.
 
If they are thinking of sex, they arent depressed.
poppycock. this is an incredibly naive and baseless claim (similar to claims that people who laugh or smile aren't depressed that some people come up with). Yes loss of libido is a common feature of depression but many patients with depression continue to experience significant sexual interest, particularly if their premorbid personality was somewhat hypersexual. For example patients with narcissistic personality disorder or even borderline personality disorder will often have hypersexuality or sexual behavior during depressive episodes, as will patients with a hyperthymic temperament. Patients with bipolar spectrum disorders may also have significant depression with hypersexuality (but no other features of mania). I treated a patient whose depression was driven by significant shame for having normal sexual thoughts and drive. In fact, part of the reason the pt improved with an SSRI was because it diminished his libido and made him feel less perverted. Compulsive sexual behavior may arise in depressive illness as a sort of affective equivalent. Patients may use sex as a sort of antidepressant to emotionally numb themselves. In the most severe depressive states you may also see a focus on sexual thoughts and behavior. I treated a patient with psychotic depression who had been catatonic for 2 years. He believed he was a pedophile (which turned out to be delusional) but had also been compulsively masturbating and became interested in bestiality. Paradoxical hypersexuality has been reported as occurring in the literature. Finally, "depression" is such an amorphous term and pathoplastic condition that not everyone has the same experiences. Hell not even depressed mood is required for the diagnosis. And loss of libido or hyposexuality, which often an accompanying feature of depression in general and melancholia in particular is not even part of the DSM or ICD-10 criteria for depression. It would be a mistake to assess severity of depression based on sexual drive. I have treated several severely depressed patients who maintained a rich inner world of sexual phantasy and kink.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I don't have the numbers in hand, but sexual dysfunction isn't rare with or without SSRIs. With the rate of SSRI use, it would be impossible for there not to be cases of sexual dysfunction after SSRI discontinuation. A placebo control group wouldn't be zero either. I agree that we have a history of being slow to believe in our side effects, but I don't think this one will stand the test of time.

I think it was back in the 70s when this was published, but I remember seeing some of the early literature on how day before appointment phone calls can lower no show rates. Some pilot data on mental health patients showed this to be true for our population. However, when matched controls were used the patients without phones explained almost all of the difference in show rates. It seems having it together enough to mail a check to Bell telephone means you are likely to show up for appointments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Any medication can cause any side effect.
While true, this doesn't help us consent anyone. It would help shorten the inserts to just "and this can cause anything you can think of".
 
It would help shorten the inserts to just "and this can cause anything you can think of".

Maybe we should look into that. It would sure cut down on the paper I use for my drug information handouts. :)

My point was that permanent sexual side effects from SSRIs is quite likely a real phenomenon given the limitations of our understanding even regarding their exact mechanism of action. I believe as a discipline we can be cavalier in our use of medications, especially with SSRIs for off label indications.
 
It seems that you are comfortable in your opinions, believing that the risks of SSRIs are fully known because they have been widely prescribed for over twenty years. Yet, it is estimated that about one percent of post market adverse reactions are actually reported. In fact, the Prozac product label now includes a statement that "Symptoms of sexual dysfunction occasionally persist after discontinuation of fluoxetine treatment" (section 6.2). Eli Lilly acknowledges having 94 reports of persistent post treatment sexual dysfunction.

Agree. But I'll also further add that this is so exceedingly small it begs the question of whether the problem was in fact caused by the SSRI. It could be psychological or non-SSRI related.

There are people who believe the EM waves are giving them headaches and avoid wi-fi like the plague. Again the amount of people is so overwhelmingly small but they're out there. They are so few in number that people having this problem as a placebo/psychosomatic induced etiology are more likely than a real and in face studies show this phenomenon probably isn't real.

With biology there's almost always a bell curve. That is there will usually be outliers that are very small in number. For this reason I don't refute the above phenomenon are impossible but that I'd be highly highly skeptical of someone with such a problem.

If I had a patient with such as problem I would treat it as physiological first only to rule it out. If it couldn't be ruled out after an examination for the physical causes then I'd be willing to consider it as real.

In an effort to cut-corners I've seen too many doctors assume something and be wrong. E.g. a guy tells a nurse he has a radio show so she assumes he has bipolar disorder and then it turns out he in fact does have a radio show-a show with about only 50 listeners, he broadcasts on AM with a Radio Shack transmission kit. Doesn't sound quite so grandiose when you find out what's really going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I had a patient once who told me that she had a nationally famous deceased brother in law without any known ties to the community we were in.

I had my med student do some googling. She wasn't lying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A long time ago we had a homeless guy who said he was on the run because he had information about an international plot to kill the pope. Stuck out only because he had a Rolex on his property slip, but was otherwise dirty and smelly. Didn't get very far into an interview when the FBI showed up and took him away. Never heard an other word. No one called the FBI, or at least admitted to calling the FBI.
 
A long time ago we had a homeless guy who said he was on the run because he had information about an international plot to kill the pope. Stuck out only because he had a Rolex on his property slip, but was otherwise dirty and smelly. Didn't get very far into an interview when the FBI showed up and took him away. Never heard an other word. No one called the FBI, or at least admitted to calling the FBI.

Jason Bourne, is that you?
 
Oldie but goodie--
So we have a 70-some year old lady on the unit--no colateral and not much frontal lobe function. Nice enough, not thoroughly demented, but perseverative as all get out, will NOT stop talking about this and that project, community stuff she's done, celebrities she claims to have known, her friend who's a state senator, and on and on and on....

This morning in report, we're told that pt is telling everyone that "Senator B" is coming to visit between 10 and 11. Everybody is dismissing it, even making fun a little--she'd made the same claim yesterday. At 1030, I walk through the dayroom and see the patient with a casually dressed middle-aged female visitor. Stop by to check on her..."Hi Doctor, this is Senator B!" Sure enough...patient worked on campaigns long ago. It was a treat for me to have a prominent state legislator on my unit to see us in action (hopefully she'll keep us in mind next budget session!), and to see her support and advocate for her friend. But anyhow--you can't just dismiss every "crazy" delusion, can you? :oops:
 
Maybe having sex can cause depression dysfunction. Ya that's it.....Sex-Induced Depression Dysfunction, SIDD

Your welcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top