Unpublished Antidepressant Data

[billypilgrim37]

Here's an excellent lay press article by Peter Kramer about the suppressed pharm study data that's created quite the stir.

And of course, the Last Psychiatrist has his perspective as well.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Anasazi23]

Right. I'll start d/c'ing all my patients' SSRIs tomorrow. I doubt there will by any problem with that...since the "study" said so.

 

[billypilgrim37]

Right. I'll start d/c'ing all my patients' SSRIs tomorrow.

Huh? Either you're making a joke, or we read different articles...

 

[masterofnone]

ummm...I vote that he was making a joke

 

[xanthines]

So do any residents or attendings have an opinion on how this will affect psychiatry? I'd like to see some tea leaves on what the long-term effects will be in addition the here and now.

-X

 

[billypilgrim37]

So do any residents or attendings have an opinion on how this will affect psychiatry? I'd like to see some tea leaves on what the long-term effects will be in addition the here and now.

-X

I think the point of Kramer's article is that this study doesn't actually affect anything. There are many reasons for publishing or not publishing trials, and many of the negative trials were of poor methodologies, were underpowered, and used clinically irrelevant outcomes to determine efficacy or lack thereof.

We have good evidence that antidepressant medications are beneficial. We also have evidence that the funding source of a research project effects the way in which data is presented. And that's nothing new.

Star*D is still Star*D, and some podunk trial Glaxo threw together in 1988 to hoodwink the FDA doesn't change Star*D.