Depression

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

bringinit247

one of the millions...
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
This has nothing to do with pharmacy school admissions and stuff like that, but I just thought I'd get some people's input about this topic. I thought this section of the forum would be the best place to go because people here obviously have knowledge about drugs and their effects on the human body. So, what does everybody here think about the source of clinical depression? I don't really know too much about neurotransmitters and hormones yet. I am torn between believing depression is a result of a chemical imbalance in the brain, and believing it comes from bad experiences during life. Whatever the case may be, do you think depression can be eliminated by anti-depressants, or will depression continue to haunt people with troubled pasts, regardless of what drugs they put into their systems? I guess this is an age-old question, but I was just wondering what everybody else thought.........

Members don't see this ad.
 
I had a bad bout of depression about two years ago (trying to figure out what i was gonna do w/my life and dealing with a jacked up relationship sitch.) It's definitely a mix of things. The only thing that got me out was exercise and paxil. I actually think the exercise was more important. When i got back to lifting, my sleep improved, hence my mood improved. Everything.

I'm also confident that your social support system is critical. I was lucky to have friends that would call and check on my dumb a*s every morning and TRY to make me meet em for coffee and stuff.

I think it requires a multi-pronged approach. I think the central components are

  • serotonin regulation
  • cognitive behavior adjustment
  • exercise
  • social support
  • healthy living environment

Of course, there are different ways to approach this. Your social support net can improve your serotonin levels, as can exerices. You need an environment that promotes psychological healing, a safe-zone if you will. Living in a bad sitch is a quick way to make matters worse. For me, exercise was definitely the most important for w.e. reason. It really got me back on track.
 
I am skeptical about about the ability of medicine to successfully mess with brain chemistry at the current state of the art -ESPECIALLY as you see it practiced at the community level. My favorite analogy is doing watch repair with a hammer. When the only tool you possess is a hammer all your problems begin to look like nails.

We are a pill popping quick fix instant gratification society and I love to hear the likes of Neil Bortz fire up dissent when he accuses parents who feed Ritalin to their kids of being too lazy to do their job properly.

What of other healing modalities which are foreign to western allopathic medicine. What about the studies done by Elizabeth Targ on the healing power of prayer, just what is going on when
a Reiki master turns on the heat. Western medicine treats symptoms, but what are we missing by handing out pills?

Selling these pills puts food on my table. Take away antidepressants, antipsychotics, and sedative/hypnotics and you have just wiped out a third to one-half of my business. With that thought in mind I have never forgotten a sticky note on the bulletin board of one of my professors; "pills are placebos packed with the power of suggestion"

Physicians treat and physicians diagnose, but they really don't HEAL anything. Healing is a special something that comes from inside

What a joke - a pharmacist that doesn't believe in his pills. There is great irony and opportunity here. You have come to school to learn to be healers. When you put on that white jacket they place their faith in you to help them. Muster your finest healing intent and follow your intuition to say and do the right thing at the right time. Your real job is to send them home believing they have been helped - for this kindles the healer within.

Call it magic for that is what it is.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
well, if you ask 9 out of 10 people outside of the student doctor forum, im sure they will tell you, you just need to get over whatever's bothering you. They just dont understand that its not easy like that. I, like Triangulation, believe its a number of things. Clearly though, I do believe a difference between mourning of a loved one and depression. Some people don't realize that mark. Clinical depression is something that is usually brewing for years. Medications do help but to a certain extent because the environment around you will make or break you. And in some cases, drugs dont work and patients go through a procedure called ECT. (Electro Convulsive Therepy) My mom has been suffering from severe clinical depression now for over 20 years. I have no doubt in my mind that it was caused in her child hood via post traumatic stress disorder. Night after night being beat senseless will cause it. (or in my opinion it will) Depression is a nasty thing and I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy. Tri's approach to depression is good IF you can do all that he listed. Some people are just not physically able and the condition gets worse. I hate to sound grim, but it is a grim subject. I hope this helps
 
I had hoped anti-depressants would miraculously cure my depression last year. I went to a psychiatrist (doctor of osteopathy), who basically told me medication won't help you, you have to help yourself..."stop feeling sorry for yourself, kick your husband out of your house if you hate him so much, get a new job"....yeah, like I didn't realize these things already. If it was that easy I wouldn't have sought out help. :rolleyes: I didn't go to her for counseling, I went to get drugs. It wasn't just my current problems that plagued me; I remember feeling like that since kindergarten, and I don't feel sorry for myself, but many years of an emotionally abusive marriage pushed me over the edge.

I tried Zoloft, but I stopped taking it after the third time in two weeks that I drove through a red light without realizing it until I was already past the intersection. I was lucky I didn't kill myself or someone else. That drug made me so confused that I didn't remember why I was sad, or even how to be sad. Then I tried wellbutrin SR. It didn't help my depression, but it did curb my Dr. Pepper addiction, and suppressed my appetite, which is not a good thing since I'm 5'8 and 118 lbs. She prescribed prozac next, but I never had it filled. I didn't want to feel worse than I already did.

That's just my experience. Perhaps these meds work for some people. I am about 80% better now that I am divorced. :)
 
I have recently began taking Prozac once daily. I felt I needed something after getting a divorce, losing my job and my house...all at the SAME time! I graduated with an Engineering degree and worked for Ford Motor Company for 5 years then given the boot because of downsizing. I had a $180,000 house, 2 cars and money in the bank. Less than a year later, I'm living in a one bedroom apartment and back to being a broke full-time student. All this and 29 years old!

Needless to say, I needed something in order to keep from losing my mind. I initially tried wellbutrin SR, but it did absolutely nothing for me. I've tried Prozac for 2 weeks now and I do feel better overall. Of course you're supposed to give it at least 3-4 weeks to fully kick in. So now, I'm finishing up O-chem 2 and Anatomy and Physiology, studying for the Oct. 25 PCAT and getting ready to send my apps in for 2004. Funny how life can be such a rollercoaster!
 
Not to sully everyone's enthusiasm for describing their medication regimen, but the question was 'how we think it can be treated?'

What are people's thoughts? This is a sizeable contingent of what I want to dedicate myself to, so I'm as curious as the thread starter.
 
Originally posted by Triangulation
Not to sully everyone's enthusiasm for describing their medication regimen, but the question was 'how we think it can be treated?'

What are people's thoughts? This is a sizeable contingent of what I want to dedicate myself to, so I'm as curious as the thread starter.

I completed a psych rotation where they had successfully treated
classic clinical depression using very large doses of tricyclic anti depressants closely monitored with blood levels. This was before the serotonin reuptake inhibitors hit the market and it was on an inpatient basis. Patient compliance was a constant issue so you saw a high relapse rate in the outpatient setting. The patient population was working with a team of psychiatrists that included two pharm D's who specialized in the field so the treatment level was state of the art. You were dead on in your assessment of treatment needs and I cannot emphasize enough the difference between what was going on in that setting and what you find in your garden variety community clinic or the office of your neighborhood GP. They don't have the time or the resources to do the job right and I don't care what silver bullet they are pushing, taking a magic pill isn't gonna solve the problem all by itself. Like diabetes or alcoholism, successfully treating true clinical depression is a lifestyle taken one day at a time

I have watched ECT therapy, and yeah it works sort of. So do lobotomies if your goal is creating docile easily managed patients.
It leaves lesions on the brain and it tends to wear off after a while requiring several treatments and more damage.

Because of your professional interest in this topic I suggest you look up the unique work of Brian Weiss on Google. It will blow your socks off.
 
posted by triangulation
Not to sully everyone's enthusiasm for describing their medication regimen, but the question was 'how we think it can be treated?'
actually, the questions were:
posted by bringinit247
what does everybody here think about the source of clinical depression?....and.... Whatever the case may be, do you think depression can be eliminated by anti-depressants, or will depression continue to haunt people with troubled pasts, regardless of what drugs they put into their systems?

Tri, I think your "multi-pronged approach" to treating depression was right on:
"serotonin regulation
cognitive behavior adjustment
exercise
social support
healthy living environment"

........I think we mostly agree that anti-depressants alone will not eliminate depression.

Take the analogy of a haunted house. No matter how many times you may knock down that house and try to rebuild it, the ghost inhabitants will remain, because it is in fact the foundation that is haunted and not the house itself....where the foundation of clinical depression is irregular serotonin levels, and the house is the environment that worsens or alleviates the symptoms of depression...what I'm trying to say is that everyone's personal strories provided corroborating evidence to show that most people need the serotonin regulation to "cleanse" their foundations, and go from there. :)
 
Well said Karma, but say a pt came to you and told you their story and the depression they were experiencing (One of our MD clinicians likes to say that pharmacists are the bartenders of health care in that everyone that comes in wants to tell you their problems ad nauseam) at any rate, what would you tell them? Gimme a scenario and a response.
 
posted by triangulation
Well said Karma, but say a pt came to you and told you their story and the depression they were experiencing (One of our MD clinicians likes to say that pharmacists are the bartenders of health care in that everyone that comes in wants to tell you their problems ad nauseam) at any rate, what would you tell them? Gimme a scenario and a response.

"you talking to me? you talking to me? well there's no one here, you must be talking to me" - ;) taxi driver

Tri, I could not possibly answer your question, since I am not even a pharmacy student yet. Yes, I know firsthand what depression actually feels like, and what some of the meds make you feel like, but I know nothing about the laws that a pharmacist has to abide by when counseling a patient. At the same time, I think I will be better able to deal with a scenario such as you have described above when I am a licensed pharmacist, because someone can be taught a drug's mechanism of action, and be told that it will cure a certain condition, and a drug's side effects can be described, but it's not the same as the actual experience of taking the drug, so I will have a little more empathy for patients suffering from depression than the average pharmacist. But for now, this is one of those questions that I will have to answer respectfully with an "I don't know."
 
Originally posted by karmapatroL
[B"I don't know." [/B]

I respectfully disagree because you've been there and done that. Not yet being in pharmacy school makes you every bit as qualified as the rest of us because this scenario is not about drug therapy, and pharmacists are not trained in psychoanalytic technique. All you need is your compassion and your desire to help. Sometimes all a good bartender has to do is just listen....
 
Originally posted by baggywrinkle
I respectfully disagree because you've been there and done that. Not yet being in pharmacy school makes you every bit as qualified as the rest of us because this scenario is not about drug therapy, and pharmacists are not trained in psychoanalytic technique. All you need is your compassion and your desire to help. Sometimes all a good bartender has to do is just listen....

i almost totally agree (don't use that combination of words on your personal states ;) ) A lot of schools are giving a lot of exposure to psychiatric medicine. Psych rotations are becoming very extensive at every school i know. At the same time, i do agree that karma is already well armed to deal with that kind of question, and you will get it. I once had a pt who wanted feedback on every aspect of her anxiety treatment regimen. They will demand answers from you, and you need to be prepared and willing to answer them. I basically described other treatment options as far as pharmaceutics, but also described other modalities psychotherapy, mindfulness based stress reduction (MBSR which was pioneered in keiki's new neck of the woods.)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Tri, I could not possibly answer your question, since I am not even a pharmacy student yet.

A good chunk of us have been pharm students for a month or less, so i think the playing field is pretty level here.;)
 
I've been reading this thread..and I think it's cool that we can discuss a topic like depression on this forum. Like Tri said - I think it's not only medication that will help your mood, but 'healthy living'-eating right, social support, exercise. It's important not to be overly dependent on medication. Also, I wanted to point out that the potency of the medication varies from person to person (as well as its side-effects - decreased appetite, drowsiness).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'God gave us two ends. One to sit on and one to think with. Success depends on which one you use; head you win - tails, you lose.' - Anonymous
 
Hey Cyclopropane!!! I'm sooooo-->o pissed the A's lost it can't be described!!!!!!
 
Hey Cyclopropane!!! I'm sooooo-->o pissed the A's lost it can't be described!!!!!!

DITTO! i'm even more pissed hearing the fans outside last night cheering and honking for like the next hour after the game was over...:rolleyes: the a's threw it away...:(
 
Originally posted by baggywrinkle


Physicians treat and physicians diagnose, but they really don't HEAL anything. Healing is a special something that comes from inside

As a future physician I cannot agree more with this statement.

The primary role of a physician should be to promote health.

The body can "cure" itself...the doctor just needs to push the patient in the right direction sometimes...and sometimes that push needs to be accompanied by a pharmaceutical regulant to help keep things on an even keel.
 
And to add to the depression issue...

Do antidepressant medications work? Yes, and they often work well.

Are they always necessary? No way.

Often, physicians are too quick to reach for the prescription pad instead of reaching out to the patient.

If anyone refutes this, I can give dozens of examples and personal experience from both the pharmacy standpoint as well as the medical standpoint.
 
Adding my 2 cents...

Depression is an insidious disease. Everyone is different and has different needs. First and foremost, the healthcare provider must be willing to listen to the patient. Drugs may or may not be used, based on the severity of the course. Special attention should be paid to drugs that may cause a discontinuation effect or weight gain, loss, or confusion. Again, listen to the patient. Many patients benefit from a combination of short-term drug therapy and effective cognitive therapy, as mentioned by previous posters. Patients must also be counseled that it will take time for the depression to lift, but if they hang in there and the healthcare providers are supportive, things will get better.

An interesting (and easy) read that I think anyone can relate to is William Styron's, Darkness Visible.
 
Originally posted by bringinit247
This has nothing to do with pharmacy school admissions and stuff like that, but I just thought I'd get some people's input about this topic. I thought this section of the forum would be the best place to go because people here obviously have knowledge about drugs and their effects on the human body. So, what does everybody here think about the source of clinical depression? I don't really know too much about neurotransmitters and hormones yet. I am torn between believing depression is a result of a chemical imbalance in the brain, and believing it comes from bad experiences during life. Whatever the case may be, do you think depression can be eliminated by anti-depressants, or will depression continue to haunt people with troubled pasts, regardless of what drugs they put into their systems? I guess this is an age-old question, but I was just wondering what everybody else thought.........

No one knows the source of depression, and it may very well be a combination of neurotransmitter/hormonal dysregulation as well as bad life experiences. It is important to remember that depression is a disease that can, in many cases, actually be detected by analysis of csf fluid, simple blood hormonal challenges, etc. THere actually is little to no evidence that depression is a disease of serotonin, and there are anti depressants that work well and have absolutely no impact on serotonin levels. ECT works surprisingly well, especially in refractory depression. The proceedure itself is safe and looks absolutely nothing like what appears on movies.
 
I'm gonna disagree w/you LSU, but I gotta go to my case study iv first. Toodles.:D
 
Originally posted by Triangulation
I'm gonna disagree w/you LSU, but I gotta go to my case study iv first. Toodles.:D

I don't know what in my post you disagree with. Most of the information was given by, by far, the most published and knowledgable pharmacologist I have met. In fact, he came up with the definitions/criteria for a neurotransmitter that you probably learned in pharmacy school.
 
Links to 5H-T level abnormalities have been linked to aberrant psychological behavior for more than twenty years now. Most publicized case was the Dutch family undergoing treatment for extremely violent behavior where they discovered lack of MAO-A in frontal lobe i.e. excess serotonin can also cause abnormalities.

It seems difficult that you could dismiss 5h-T since it's the basis for most neurological studies done in neurobiology when that science wasn't even called that in the experimental preparation aplysia . Remember facilitation, memory?

LSU,

Do me a favor and don't tell me that i should believe you because you heard it from someone famous. That has absolutely no substance. I too have worked with some heavy hitters in science, but i'm not gonna be using that to back up a claim.

I will agree that ECT is a very effective and overlooked treatment modality. I attended a great lecture on that four years ago at ucsf.
 
Originally posted by Triangulation


I will agree that ECT is a very effective and overlooked treatment modality. I attended a great lecture on that four years ago at ucsf.

Right up there with bloodletting and cathartics in my book. SPEAKING of which, have any of you played with pharmaceutical leeches?


Offering brain damage as treatment?

http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Depression/ect/brain/brain.html

http://www.ect.org/effects.shtml

http://www.banshock.org/index3.htm

http://www.garynull.com/Documents/ECT/ECTindex.htm

http://www.psycom.net/depression.central.ect.html

http://www.antipsychiatry.org/ect.htm

http://www.oikos.org/ectfried.htm

http://www.wamhic.com/campaign_against_ect.htm



We really haven't advanced far beyond the lovely case histories I read in the Lancet of 1776!

"There is general agreement among medical historians today that orthodox medicine of the 1700s and 1800s in particular frequently caused more harm than good. (9)


Bloodletting and application of leeches were common practice even through to the mid-1800s. One French doctor bloodlet so much that some jokingly estimated that he spilled more blood in his medical practice than was spilled throughout the entire Napoleonic Wars. (10). Benjamin Rush, considered the father of American medicine, asserted that bloodletting was useful in all general and chronic disease. (11) As many as 41 million leeches were imported into France in 1833 alone. (12) In the United States, one firm imported 500,000 leeches in 1856; its competitor imported 300,000. (13). Besides bloodletting and leeches, orthodox physicians used medicines made from mercury, lead, arsenic, and various strong herbs to help purge the body of foreign disease-causing matter. "

- Ullman, Dana., 1991, Internet edition: A Condensed History of Homeopathy
http://www.geocities.com/homeolibrary3/

During your training and subsequent practice, keep in mind that it is possible that the very paradigm your training is based on may be flawed and those who follow may view what we do today as barbaric and inhumane.
 
Originally posted by Triangulation
Links to 5H-T level abnormalities have been linked to aberrant psychological behavior for more than twenty years now. Most publicized case was the Dutch family undergoing treatment for extremely violent behavior where they discovered lack of MAO-A in frontal lobe i.e. excess serotonin can also cause abnormalities.

It seems difficult that you could dismiss 5h-T since it's the basis for most neurological studies done in neurobiology when that science wasn't even called that in the experimental preparation aplysia . Remember facilitation, memory?

LSU,

Do me a favor and don't tell me that i should believe you because you heard it from someone famous. That has absolutely no substance. I too have worked with some heavy hitters in science, but i'm not gonna be using that to back up a claim.

I will agree that ECT is a very effective and overlooked treatment modality. I attended a great lecture on that four years ago at ucsf.

I never said believe me b/c I heard it from someone famous; I was only conveying where I had heard it. I also never said 5ht has no effect on behavior (of course it has an effect on behavior). We all know that serotonin can have profound effects on behavior. There are medications that effectively treat depression by way of regulating 5ht; on the same token there are medications that effectively treat depression with absolutely no impact on 5ht. I only stated that it has yet to be proven that depression is a disease of 5ht. Depression is far more complicated than simply being linked to 5ht as the underlying factor. I'm wrong? Show me.

Baggywinkle, I'm sorry, but your comments, especially the .357 comment reflects ignorance concerning electroconvulsive therapy. ECT can be extremely effective and quite safe in treating depression, bipolar disorder, etc., especially when these conditions are refractory, severe, and/or fail to respond to medications.
 
Okay. Maybe it's a semantics issue LSU. I'm only going with what I've encountered both in research and clinical settings. In medicine and the economics of health care, SSRIs have been cited as one of the few true success stories of medicine. Definitely in pharm policy, many clinicians and economicsts are arguing that far from the stigma it receives SSRIs should at least get equal treatment and coverage to 'physical ailments' meds because of its demonstrable alleviation of anxiety and depression. Why they say this is not because they're bleeding heart altruists, but bc the cost/benefit analysis supports it. It's good in a fiscal sense.

Nothing is a silver bullet, and I"m not in accord with the minority that recommends prozac for people without symptoms for 'enhanced performance' but i do believe that it can certainly be an excellent modality to prevent debilitation. One would hope that pts would use all the other methods in conjuction with meds. We'll have to see. I think it's still in its early stages.
 
The ECT comment is a little bit crude man. That hurts me personally because I have stated before, my mom is going thru it as a last resort. So far, its been 6 treatments and it seems to be working pretty well. I havent seen my "real" mom since I was little so im thrilled about it. In no way is this a substitute for medicine though. She still needs to continue but im am very happy to see I have my mom in her old self back. Also, if you remember for presidential candidate Michael Dukakis from 1988, his wife is one of the biggest activists for ECT treatment because, like my mom, had no other alternatives. When there are no other alternatives, yes they will go with your alternative and cheaper idea of a .357 thru the skull but I sure hope no one ever reaches that route. I know that you probably didnt mean it that way, but that hurts man.....
 
Originally posted by LSUMED2006
ECT can be extremely effective and quite safe in treating depression, bipolar disorder, etc., especially when these conditions are refractory, severe, and/or fail to respond to medications.
Indeed. In one of my psych classes, we learned that ECT is sometimes given to pregnant women - many of them don't want to take a chance on the drugs having a negative effect on the fetus.

Baggywrinkle, with all due respect, if my mother were the one with depression, I'd be more interested in what her doctors had to say about her treatment than in what some stranger on the internet says. I'm not trying to belittle your knowledge of ECT, but it's important to remember that we don't know South2006's mom. The doctors do. We do not have all the facts and we are not her health care providers, so it is not our place to say which treatment is best.

South2006, I hope your mom gets better soon. If ECT works, great! If not, I hope she can find something else.
 
Originally posted by Triangulation
In medicine and the economics of health care, SSRIs have been cited as one of the few true success stories of medicine. Definitely in pharm policy, many clinicians and economicsts are arguing that far from the stigma it receives SSRIs should at least get equal treatment and coverage to 'physical ailments' meds because of its demonstrable alleviation of anxiety and depression.

Is the alleged success of SSRIs in comparison to other meds used for anxiety/depression based on evidence or is it simply the power of corporate money in promoting and advertising SSRIs (since such drugs are still under patent)? Every decade or so it is claimed that scientists have made a breakthrough in the treatment for anxiety and/or depression. But is there any real evidence that SSRIs are any better at alleviating anxiety and depression than previously discovered drugs used for these disorders? Are there any studies that show SSRIs to be superior to benzos in terms of alleviating anxiety? Are there any studies that show SSRIs to be superior to previously discovered antidepressants in alleviating depression? To my knowledge there are no such studies and I don't believe any such claims are made even by those who advocate SSRIs as a true success story. In fact, some studies suggest that the benefits of SSRIs may be greatly overinflated:

http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050023a.html

Despite such criticism, however, it is still argued that SSRIs have fewer side-effects, are less prone to dependency and withdrawl effects than previously used medications. Is this accurate? Here's a review of WHO data that suggest otherwise:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4201752,00.html

"One of the main selling points of the SSRIs when they arrived in the early 1990s was that people did not become physically dependent on them as they had on older antidepressants - the benzodiazepines such as Valium and Librium. But a World Health Organisation league table of the drugs that doctors think cause people most problems when they are trying to quit puts paroxetine (Seroxat) in the number one slot with twice as many reports as the next highest, another SSRI called venlafaxine (Efexor). Sertraline (Lustral) is fourth and fluoxetine (Prozac) is seventh in the table compiled by the Uppsala monitoring centre. The benzodiazepines Ativan (lorazipam) and Valium (diazepam) come 11th and 13th..."The SSRIs are drugs for which withdrawal symptoms are most reported worldwide," said Charles Medawar of the group Social Audit, which has battled to get the authorities to recognise there is a problem. "Yet they are nothing like as widely used as benzodiazepines were."

So where is the success story with SSRIs?

1. These drugs aren't any more effective than previous medications (and arguably less effective).

2. Because of patent protection, SSRIs are usually more expensive than previous medications (i.e. benzos).

3. Arguably, they have just as many side-effects and prone to withdrawl and dependency as other drugs used for these conditions. A quick search through any anxiety or depression forums supports this.
 
Originally posted by LSUMED2006

Baggywinkle, I'm sorry, but your comments, especially the .357 comment reflects ignorance concerning electroconvulsive therapy. ECT can be extremely effective and quite safe in treating depression, bipolar disorder, etc., especially when these conditions are refractory, severe, and/or fail to respond to medications.

Obviously you have not taken the time to review my links. There is a body of evidence which contradicts your assertion of safety which somehow never quite make it into the lectures. Just as you won't see much in in the drug rep's bag about the growing connection between SSRI and violence.


Barbaric and inhumane.

I have retracted my .357 comment though I cannot see a difference between brain damage done all at once and brain damage done in tiny bits. Such damage is, after all, cumulative.
 
wow. we've got some serious contention up in this board. I love it. Alright, I'll have to find more details to substantiate claims made.

i do agree that baggy was waaaaay outta line though (and i like you a lot dude). i remember when someone likened accupuncture to voodoo and I wanted to tear their heart out. Your beliefs are yours, but don't ridicule others, especially when it comes to the health of people's loved ones. there's no place for that. none.

Back to the success of SSRIs, I'll have to dig around. Anecdotally, it worked for me. We must rememer that the goal of all of this is to alleviate suffering. Once again, there is always a cost for the benefit, but I certainly think the benefit far outweighs the cost. I do remember the whole brooha about paxil withdrawal, but that's why they taper down. Dunno.

But are you guys saying you either wouldn't prescribe SSRIs or youwould preferentially recommend Benzos for depression?
 
Originally posted by Triangulation
wow. we've got some serious contention up in this board. I love it. Alright, I'll have to find more details to substantiate claims made.

i do agree that baggy was waaaaay outta line though (and i like you a lot dude). i remember when someone likened accupuncture to voodoo and I wanted to tear their heart out. Your beliefs are yours, but don't ridicule others, especially when it comes to the health of people's loved ones. there's no place for that. none.

Back to the success of SSRIs, I'll have to dig around. Anecdotally, it worked for me. We must rememer that the goal of all of this is to alleviate suffering. Once again, there is always a cost for the benefit, but I certainly think the benefit far outweighs the cost. I do remember the whole brooha about paxil withdrawal, but that's why they taper down. Dunno.

But are you guys saying you either wouldn't prescribe SSRIs or youwould preferentially recommend Benzos for depression?


I wasn't ridiculing anyone, all I said was.... well never mind what I said. My comment was misconstrued because there are two conversations going on here. I was addressing the professional thread and I threw in some gallows humor for impact, but I neglected the other thread which involves treating loved ones and some folks got miffed. I apologize. Regarding gallows humor, you run into this in healthcare. Classic examples are ICU nurses talking about bed three swirling the drain or a resident making rounds watering the vegetables. It is a coping mechanism, shop talk, bad news when family overhears...

Variation happens, but that doesn't mean I don't care. Hardly.

A point I am trying to make is that the state of the art sux.
You try to improve the quality of life of an individual by destroying bits of their gray matter. It works and works well in some patients. But at what cost? We don't know why it works because we really don't know what is wrong. Treatment is empiric and result based. ("Take this and see what happens") Don't let them con you otherwise. Remember that there is not a person on the planet that does not have a diagnosis in the DSMIV. According to the model we are all deviant in some manner even if it is abnormally well adjusted (the guys that write the books place themselves in this category). You talk about voodoo magic! But it still doesn't answer why this patient likes to tear the heads off of barbie dolls. Secundum Artum. Psychiatry is more art than science.

The second point I would like to make is don't ignore the minority view. A visiting prof said this when I was a P2. They will beat you bloody with receptor site theory (for example). There are other minority opinions which talk about absorption rates to steady state as an alternative explanation. A theory is a theory but it becomes gospel when you are trying to pass a test. There is a status quo maintained by the powers that be. Anything that conflicts with the paradigm (or the profits) is quashed. So, suddenly, reporting adverse effects secondary to ECT becomes a career threatening act. Finding reliable data on SSRI induced violence would be impossible without the internet and nosey people that won't let well enough alone. Gulf War Syndrome would still be a figment of your imagination without grass roots efforts connecting and comparing notes.

Does this mean ECT and pharmaceutical intervention is evil? No.
When the only tool in your tool chest is a hammer all your problems begin to look like nails. We have much to learn and many will be poorly served while we learn it.

I have a customer who is crazy as a loon. She had a definite manic component talking a mile-a-minute with ideas racing through her head faster than she could verbalize them. When she visited I could count on at least thirty minutes of my time being eaten, but she was delightful with her antics showing me the books she was writting and the artwork she dragged from home. She also had a darker side and it got her into trouble when she attacked and bit the security guard in a local ER. That got her admitted and restrained. They adjusted her medication and she is now unlikely to bite anyone. She is socially acceptable, but they have effectively removed her personality. Chemical lobotomy comes to mind. Her affect is totally flat. The twinkle and the smile are gone replaced with rounded shoulders, a blank stare, and a monotone voice. She is a success story having integrated well back into society. She functions. It is the best we can do....
 
Originally posted by Triangulation
Back to the success of SSRIs, I'll have to dig around. Anecdotally, it worked for me. We must rememer that the goal of all of this is to alleviate suffering. Once again, there is always a cost for the benefit, but I certainly think the benefit far outweighs the cost. I do remember the whole brooha about paxil withdrawal, but that's why they taper down. Dunno. But are you guys saying you either wouldn't prescribe SSRIs or youwould preferentially recommend Benzos for depression?

My argument was that SSRIs, overall, are not better than older antidepressants like tricyclics for depression. If anything, they are probably slightly less effective. Just have a look at the research (I've posted one review below). Same goes with SSRI use for many anxiety disorders. Older anxiolytics like certain benzos are just as effective, if not more effective for many anxiety disorders. These older drugs are also often significantly cheaper and it's even been argued that they have fewer side-effects. So why are SSRIs usually the first drug of choice for these conditions? It's not based on greater efficacy (benefits) but on more $$$ spent on advertising/promotion. So I don't think SSRIs are the success story that many claim. The health care cost for such drugs is significant, the overall benefit is not that great.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Affect Disord. 2000 Apr;58(1):19-36.


Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus tricyclic antidepressants: a meta-analysis of efficacy and tolerability.

Anderson IM.

Background: A meta-analysis of the efficacy and tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) against tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in depressed patients was carried out. Methods: Efficacy data from 102 randomised controlled trials (10706 patients) were pooled to provide a summary variance-weighted effect size. Tolerability data from 95 studies (10553 patients) were combined to give variance-weighted relative risk of drop out for all reasons and for adverse effects from each study. The effect of age, treatment setting, severity and TCA dose were examined as well as the performance of individual SSRIs and TCAs where there were sufficient studies. Results: There is no overall difference in efficacy between SSRIs and TCAs (effect size -0.03, 95% confidence interval -0.09 to 0.03). TCAs do appear more effective in in-patients (-0.23, -0.40 to -0.05) and amitriptyline is more effective than SSRI comparators (-0.14, -0.25 to -0.03) but publication bias cannot be excluded. The SSRIs are better tolerated, with significantly lower rates of treatment discontinuations overall (relative risk 0.88, 0.83 to 0.93; number needed to treat 26) and due to side effects (0.73, 0.67 to 0.80; number needed to treat 33). Individual SSRIs show a similar advantage except for fluvoxamine which does not differ from the TCAs. Individual TCAs show a similar disadvantage in tolerability compared to SSRIs except for dothiepin against which SSRI treatment results in more side-effect related drop outs (2.64, 1.50 to 4.63; number needed to harm 12). Limitations: The evidence is from short-term studies and subgroup analyses may result in chance results. Conclusions: Overall efficacy between the two classes is comparable but SSRIs are not proven to be as effective as TCAs in in-patients and against amitriptyline. SSRIs have a modest advantage in terms of tolerability against most TCAs.
 
Originally posted by GKK
These older drugs are also often significantly cheaper and it's even been argued that they have fewer side-effects. So why are SSRIs usually the first drug of choice for these conditions? It's not based on greater efficacy (benefits) but on more $$$ spent on advertising/promotion.

The chief advantage SSRI have over older work horses is once a day dosing. Compliance in this population has always been a challenge and is the chief reason for relapse. The toxicity
index is much better in SSRI. TCA in the hands of a depressed
person is always a worry such that frequency of refill and quantity dispensed are matters of concern when screening a profile due to the dangers associated with overdose.

In conversation with patients I gather that SSRI are a godsend
for problems such as panic and obssessive/compulsive disorder.

But it makes me cringe to see SSRI marketed on the airwaves to the general public. The Durham/Humphrey amendment to the FDCA was enacted for good reason, and such suggestive selling IMHO is irresponsible.

A chicken in every pot and an SSRI in every medicine kit would seem to be the goal. Prescribed in the community setting without proper followup could potentally be far worse than a simple overdose/suicide attempt. It could be a recipe for mass murder in some patients.
http://www.breggin.com/luvox.html
http://www.drugawareness.org/Ribbon/Civil.html
 
Baggywrinkle,


My word, PLEASE dont quote ANYTHING that comes out of Breggin's mouth. He is the most unresponsible "doctor" there is out there. His idea to treat depression is to say "there there, a little love and you will be better" For more info on this quack, go to

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html

Dont take that as a personal attack, I just cant stand Breggin because people start looking for an alternative to ADD drugs and find him! This sure has been an interesting discussion though....
 
Originally posted by South2006
Baggywrinkle,


My word, PLEASE dont quote ANYTHING that comes out of Breggin's mouth. He is the most unresponsible "doctor" there is out there. His idea to treat depression is to say "there there, a little love and you will be better" For more info on this quack, go to

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html

Dont take that as a personal attack, I just cant stand Breggin because people start looking for an alternative to ADD drugs and find him! This sure has been an interesting discussion though....

No offense taken. That link was the result of a very quick Google Search using PROZAC & Columbine as key words. SSRI & violence
is also productive. A quick scan of the pending lawsuits in the second link is quite telling. One could also view that quackwatch commentary as an attempt by the status quo to silence any opposing opinion. Remember that the inquisition accused Galileo of heresy for asserting that the Sun and not the Earth was the center of the universe. Is it possible that the inquisition is alive and well today?

There is one website in particular which is tracking the correlation between SSRI and people/children "going postal" I cannot find it at the moment
http://www.prozactruth.com/schoolshootings.htm

We may one day find the silver bullet/technique, but SSRI ain't it.
You won't see violence mentioned in any of the flowery television ads. SSRI, it's just so doggone profitable...

These drugs do have application when properly used in capable hands. But has anyone noticed the fad factor associated with this crap? In the seventies it was valium. Every stressed out housewife in America had to have it. The eighties brought us Prozac, and so on ad nauseum. Financially speaking I love it. It is putting my kids though college, but when judges start mandating Ritalin use backed by child abuse laws and people with that happy paxil smile start talking about putting it in the water supply
it gives me pause and the libertarian in me begins to show.

The country has a drug problem and if you doubt it ask Rush Limbaugh.
 
Top