
In a nutshell, this paper found that out of a large sample of depressed people who are fairly representative of the general population of patients presenting with depression in America, only 22% would have been accepted into a typical antidepressant trial. They were on average richer, better educated, more likely to have a job, and less likely to be black or Hispanic. In other words, typical antidepressant trials only recruit a narrow cross-section of society, tending to exclude the poor and disadvantaged and those with multiple mental health problems.
The study also found that this 22% tended to report a better response to an antidepressant, citalopram, than the rest. But as I said at the time...
Does this mean that rich white people really get more benefit from citalopram? Or do they just tend to report more benefit? Or do they experience larger placebo effects? It's impossible to say.One of the problems with the this trial was that there was no placebo group. So the fact that the select 22% reported better response doesn't mean that they actually experienced a more powerful drug effect. It's entirely possible (and I would say, likely) that they could be just the kind of people who like to play along, comply with expectations and report greater benefits, for example. Whereas in fact they might have done equally well without any drugs, whereas the people who reported a smaller benefit might have done even worse with no treatment. We just don't know.
So when Time says that
a major new study suggests that both critics and proponents might be right about SSRIs: the drugs can work, but they appear to work best for only a subset of depressed patients — those with a limited range of psychological problems. People whose depression is compounded with, say, substance abuse or a personality disorder may not get much help from SSRIs —That's one possibility, but not the only one.
9 comments:
Great blog!
I have always believed that mental illness is a social construct. Depression in many people, for some period, is a part of life. We should be raised to expect the good and the bad. We have reached a point however where the "unpleasant part of life" is treated as a disease.
What a pity...
Thanks!
My view is that much of what is called "depression" today is either normal variation in mood, or just an emotional manifestation of personal or social tensions. The "illness" is a social constuct, if you like, although that doesn't mean there isn't a real non-medical problem behind it.
But I'm in no doubt that some depression is a "disease". When you have someone who is deeply depressed on some days and fine on others, seemingly at random, or who gets depressed between the hours of 10 am and 7 pm (very common, this is called diurnal variation in mood), it's hard to see how that can be purely social.
Wow - I wish depression was so simple
We found your blog via Time magazine, and we're favorably impressed with your work, Neuroskeptic. Well done!
Best regards,
Dr. M.I. Bonkers
Institute for Nearly Genuine Research
www.bonkersinstitute.org
Thanks... I think!
Congrats! Nice pickup on Time.
Congrats for your Blog mentioned in the Time magazine...
Some depression is certainly not an illness;our culture medicalizes profound sadness in a way it should not. At the same time this is true, it is also very, sadly true that there are people who live with an experience of deep depression that is really not at all related to any "normal ups and downs" or failure to confront an unpleasant part of life. Clearly, there are psychological, social & cultural influences, as well as physiological ones. For the life of me, I can not understand how so many people glibly deny the lived reality of those who manage to survive severe mental illness. Schizophrenia is not a social construct, neither is a true clinical case of severe major depression.
If some people believe that depression is an illness (something I don't accept really) then is it not possible there can be terminal depression? If a person has severe problems in their life to the point where their "quality" is non-existent would it not be reasonable to end such a life? We all have to die eventually,so why is suicide considered taboo but dying of some horrible disease or a serious accident is considered "okay". This makes no sense. In this case shouldn't there be a procedure which allows adults after due consideration to gain an assisted suicide which is relatively "clean" as opposed to the usual painful and ugly methods. Claiming that such feelings represent an "illness" is an obviously circular argument.
Post a Comment