Study finds depression drugs no better than placebo

You know those anti-depression drugs like Zoloft and Prozac? A new study finds that they “work no better than a placebo for the majority of patients with mild or even severe depression,” according to an article published today in The Times (London):

The study, by Irving Kirsch, from the Department of Psychology at the University of Hull, is the first to examine both published and unpublished evidence of the effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which account for 16 million NHS prescriptions a year. It suggests that the effectiveness of the drugs may have been exaggerated in the past by drugs companies cherry-picking the best results for publication.

The study was published by the Public Library of Science (PLoS) and is titled “Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration.” Their published conclusion is, “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.”

Why does this matter? Because there are serious side effects to SSRIs, not the least of which can be suicidal or homicidal thoughts. Karen McCarron had just come off anti-depressants when she killed her autistic daughter, and NIU shooter Steve Kazmierczak had stopped taking Prozac a couple weeks before he killed five people and himself. There are lots of other examples.

The argument has been that the benefits of SSRIs outweigh the risks. But this study calls into question the efficacy of these anti-depression drugs, which undermines that argument. If SSRIs are no better than a placebo for most patients, then, as the researchers concluded, “there is little reason to prescribe new-generation antidepressant medications to any but the most severely depressed patients unless alternative treatments have been ineffective.”

8 thoughts on “Study finds depression drugs no better than placebo”

  1. Having played Mr. Hyde with depression for 25 years, I can tell you now, as a much better Jekyll, that anti-depressants saved my life, my family and my soul. Until you’ve sat in the sunshine on a wonderfully balmy summer day and wondered if you can use the pistol in your hand to destroy yourself, depression is just a word. Not to me.

  2. Eyebrows, do you think so lowly of PLoS that you equate one their published articles as roughly equal in validity to the worst sci-fi dreck-cum-theology ever written? Say it ain’t so.

  3. So the fact that many people have had suicidal and/or homicidal thoughts and/or actions after coming off antidepressants is an argument against their use?

    Anyone else stumped by that logic?

  4. I had not heard of the Public Library of Science and wondered if it was some organization supported by the Church of Scientology. This is what I found on Wikipedia:

    The Public Library of Science began in early 2001 as an online petition initiative by Patrick Brown, a biochemist at Stanford University and Michael Eisen, a computational biologist at the University of California, Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The petition called for all scientists to pledge that from September of 2001 they would discontinue submission of papers to journals which did not make the full-text of their papers available to all, free and unfettered, either immediately or after a delay of several months. Some now do this immediately, as open access journals, such as the BioMed Central stable of journals, or after a six-month period from publication, as what are now known as delayed open access journals, and some after 6 months or less, such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Many others continue to rely on self-archiving.

    Joined by Nobel-prize winner and former NIH-director Harold Varmus, the PLoS organizers next turned their attention to starting their own journal, along the lines of the UK-based BioMed Central which has been publishing open-access scientific papers in the biological sciences in journals such as Genome Biology and the Journal of Biology since late 1999.

    As a publishing company, the Public Library of Science began full operation on October 13, 2003, with the publication of a peer reviewed print and online scientific journal, entitled PLoS Biology, and have since launched six more peer-reviewed journals. The PLoS journals are what they describe as “open access content”; all content is published under the Creative Commons “attribution” license [1] (Lawrence Lessig, of Creative Commons, is also a member of the Advisory Board). The project states (quoting the Budapest Open Access Initiative) that: “The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited”.

    So, it appears this organization is NOT affiliated with the CoS. It’s studies are peer reviewed. I’m a big troubled by the business model, as it resembles vanity publication. I like the idea of background research and data being freely available at the time of publication, it it being published under a Creative Commons license.

    As to the accuracy of the study, I cannot judge. I would strongly suggest that people do NOT read this and go off their meds.

    This is ONE study.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.